seo_generate_security_headers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the high-level action. It does not say whether the tool scans the site, returns a static template, or has side effects, nor does it describe the output format.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, and this level of detail is appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the generated configuration looks like or how it is returned. It does not, leaving agents to guess at the return format and runtime behavior.

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 100% because siteUrl is already described as 'Base URL of the site'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Generate'), resource ('recommended security headers configuration'), and target ('a site'). The verb also distinguishes it from the sibling tool seo_security_headers, which likely checks or analyzes headers rather than generating a configuration.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this generation tool over sibling tools such as seo_security_headers or seo_generate_robots. The intended use case is implied by the name and phrase 'recommended... configuration', but the description does not state exclusions, alternatives, or context.

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