bb_headers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (checking headers, scoring, suggestions) but lacks details on how the tool behaves under error conditions, authentication requirements (auth_token parameter), or potential side effects. The behavior is adequately described for a simple audit tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks detail about parameters and usage. It front-loads the purpose, but for a tool with 5 parameters, it is too brief to be fully useful.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations and usage context, forcing the agent to rely on the schema alone, which lacks descriptions. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for input gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters. It only implies 'url' as the target but gives no information about 'proxy', 'cookie', 'timeout', or 'auth_token'. This severely hampers correct invocation.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: checking 8 security response headers, providing a score, and offering fix suggestions. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('security response headers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bb_cors or bb_csrf.

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?

The description implies usage for security header auditing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The intended context is inferred from the name and sibling tools.

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