audit_cookies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds minor behavioral context (url-based, no code needed) but does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, specific checks, and a note on usage. No filler words; information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple parameter (url), no output schema, and supportive annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it checks, and that no source code is needed. No obvious gaps.

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 already provides a full description for the single parameter 'url'. The tool description does not add any extra semantic detail beyond what the schema offers.

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 uses specific verbs ('audit', 'checks', 'detects') and precisely states the resource ('cookies') and the security flags examined (Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite). It clearly distinguishes from sibling audit_* tools by focusing solely on cookie security.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_security, audit_headers, etc. It only mentions 'No source code needed' but does not compare or exclude other tools.

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