security_audit

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions using Lighthouse and returning pass/fail with severity, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 sentence with a clear list of checks, front-loaded with purpose and no extraneous information.

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 one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose and output nature. Minor gap: does not explain severity levels or scoring format.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a description. The description adds context by specifying the URL format and linking it to security auditing, enhancing understanding beyond the 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 clearly states the tool checks security posture via Lighthouse, listing specific items (HTTPS, CSP, etc.) and returns pass/fail with severity. It distinguishes from sibling audit tools like performance_audit or seo_audit.

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 implies use for security auditing but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., performance_audit, seo_audit) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context provided.

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