Audit response cookies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, meaning the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent, read-only operation. The description adds the useful security constraint of not sending auth material, which is valuable context for a security scanning tool. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, redirect behavior, or other operational traits beyond that constraint. With annotations covering the safety profile well, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While annotations cover the safety profile and there's an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., URL must be reachable), what cookies it inspects (session cookies, tracking cookies?), or any operational details. For a security auditing tool, more could be said about when it's appropriate to use within an assessment workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description would ideally explain the 'url' parameter. It only mentions 'without sending authentication material', which doesn't clarify the URL parameter's meaning or format beyond what the schema's type and constraints provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate since there's only one parameter and the description adds minimal parameter-specific information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('Set-Cookie attributes'), which is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like headers_analysis or csp_analysis, but the resource specificity makes the target clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There's implicit guidance via 'without sending authentication material' but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like headers_analysis. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.