get_security_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content ('security score, detected issues, and actionable remediation steps') and notes the 'PRIVATE BETA' status, which adds useful context about availability. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics, leaving gaps for a tool that performs analysis.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and followed by return details and a beta note. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no wasted words. However, the 'PRIVATE BETA' note could be integrated more smoothly, and it slightly disrupts the flow.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of purpose and returns, but it's incomplete. It lacks details on output structure, error cases, and behavioral traits like rate limits. Given the complexity of security analysis, more context would help the agent use it effectively, though the description meets a minimum viable level.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'domain' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Get security analysis for a site (homepage scan only).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('security analysis'), and scope ('homepage scan only'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issues' or 'crawl_site', which might also involve site analysis.

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 usage context by specifying 'homepage scan only' and mentioning it's a 'PRIVATE BETA,' which suggests limited availability. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_issues' or 'crawl_site,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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