pentest_web_headers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose a side effect — 'records findings' — which tells the agent this is not a pure read. However, it says nothing about what happens to out-of-scope URLs, whether it requires a loaded engagement, or what the response contains.

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?

One compact sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'records findings' clause is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps: which headers are checked, how findings are recorded and where they surface, and whether a scope check is enforced. Adequate but not complete for an agent invoking it unsupervised.

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 single url parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds one meaningful constraint — the URL must be in scope — but does not specify accepted formats (scheme required? path allowed?) or validation behavior.

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 names a specific verb (audit) and specific resources (security headers, cookie flags), plus the target (an in-scope URL). It is clearly distinguishable from nearby siblings like pentest_web_cors or pentest_web_jwt, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'in-scope URL' implies usage context (targets must already be in engagement scope) and hints at a prerequisite, but it never states when to pick this over pentest_vuln_testssl or pentest_web_cors, nor any when-not conditions.

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