analyze_headers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the tool makes network requests, is read-only, has rate limits, error handling, or idempotency. Only the inspection categories are mentioned.

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 15-word sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Inspect HTTP response headers' followed by specific categories. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description lists what is inspected but omits return format, limitations (e.g., public URLs only), and error handling. Adequate but could be more complete.

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 schema has one parameter 'url' with a minimal description. The tool description adds meaning by specifying what header categories are analyzed (compression, caching, etc.), providing context 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 inspects HTTP response headers and lists specific categories (compression, caching, CDN detection, security headers, HTTP/2 support). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze CSS, fonts, images, etc.

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 for inspecting headers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cloudflare_inspector or when not to use it.

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