Security Txt

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

The description accurately reflects the read-only, non-destructive nature (consistent with annotations) and mentions 'fetch' and 'report' which are safe operations. However, it does not explain what happens if the file does not exist, whether it returns the entire file or just the contact, or any potential edge cases. The core behavior is clear but not deeply detailed.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that conveys the essential action and output. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured, making it easy to parse. No redundancy or verbosity.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description still lacks key contextual information. It does not explain how 'target' should be formatted, what the output schema looks like, or how to handle cases where the security.txt file is missing or malformed. This would hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively without additional external knowledge.

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?

The only parameter, 'target', is completely undocumented. There is no description of what it represents (e.g., a URL, domain, or IP) or the expected format. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no meaning, leaving the parameter ambiguous and hard to use correctly.

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 that the tool fetches the security.txt file and reports the declared security contact. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools that might perform similar fetches, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred. There is no distinction from other fetch-related tools, leaving the agent without direction.

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