security_headers_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'check', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose whether it is safe, what it returns, or if it performs any side-effects. Given the security testing context, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence with no redundant text. It is appropriately minimal for a tool with no parameters, though it could add behavioral detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description must stand alone. It states the action but omits what the result looks like (e.g., a list of headers, a pass/fail report) and any side effects. Given the simplicity, it's minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity about the tool's return value or impact.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is empty örst. According to the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it merely states the tool's purpose, which is adequate.

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 indicates the tool checks for common security headers and protections, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like recon_technology_stack and find_sensitive_data, though it could be more explicit about what 'protections' includes.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reading page content or inspecting network capture. It lacks context about prerequisites or expected scenarios, leaving the agent without clarity on selection criteria.

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