http_methods_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool is read-only, does not send mutating requests, and details the exact HTTP methods probed (OPTIONS, HEAD, TRACE) versus those merely read from the Allow header (PUT, DELETE, etc.). It explains the XST risk and error handling, providing significant behavioral context.

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 moderately long but well-structured. It front-loads the purpose and safety, then explains methods, provides Args, and Returns sections. Each sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it scannable, though it is longer than necessary for a simple 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?

For a security audit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thorough. It explains the method usage, return fields, defaults, and error handling, giving an agent everything needed to invoke correctly and interpret results. The output is specified with a list of fields, which compensates for the missing output schema.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning property descriptions are missing. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: host (Hostname to audit), port (defaults based on use_ssl), use_ssl (HTTPS connection), path (request path), and timeout (in seconds). It also explains defaults and the relationship between port and use_ssl, which the schema does not convey.

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 states a clear verb ('Audit') with a specific resource: HTTP request methods on a server. It explains the risk of enabling methods and mentions the active probes (OPTIONS, HEAD, TRACE) and the passive reporting of others, distinguishing it from siblings like 'http_headers_audit' which likely focus on headers.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is 'read-only and never sends a mutating request' and lists which methods are probed vs reported, helping agents decide when to use it. It doesn't name alternatives, but the context of being a security audit tool among siblings is clear, and the description prevents misuse by explaining the safe probing behavior.

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