Analyze Content Security Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing an authorization requirement and enumerating the classes of findings produced, which goes beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the analysis dimensions second; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With a rich annotation set and an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation; the only gap is the absence of guidance on sibling selection.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema documents only type and length constraints. The description implies the url is a live endpoint to be fetched and must be authorized, adding modest meaning, but no format or scope syntax is given.

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?

Specific verb (Fetch, assess) plus resource (CSP directives) with the exact analysis dimensions (unsafe, missing, duplicate, deprecated). An agent can distinguish it from general header tools, though it never names the closest sibling (headers_analysis) explicitly.

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?

Only implied usage: 'an authorized endpoint' hints that the target must be in-scope and permitted, but there is no statement of when to pick this over headers_analysis or scope_check, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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