cors_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states it sends one GET with an untrusted Origin header, inspects Access-Control-Allow-Origin and Allow-Credentials, classifies severity, and is read-only. This gives the agent a reliable behavioral model.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and behavior, followed by concise parameter and return documentation. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly: behavior, parameter semantics, severity interpretation, and the exact return keys. Without an output schema, the explicit return dictionary fills the gap completely.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains every parameter: host with an example, port default behavior based on use_ssl, use_ssl semantics, and timeout units. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Probe a host's CORS policy with a crafted Origin and flag misconfigurations.' It clearly states what the tool does and the behavior that distinguishes it from probing or audit siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: to test a host for CORS misconfigurations. It also notes 'One request, read-only,' implying a lightweight check. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is still clear.

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