header_analyzer

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 mentions the tool analyzes headers and provides a security grade, but does not specify if it makes network calls (e.g., when using the 'url' parameter), what the output format is, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, error handling). This leaves key behavioral traits unclear for an agent.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality (analyzing headers) and lists key aspects (security, caching, etc.). It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating input and output aspects).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and behavioral complexity (e.g., potential network calls). It lacks details on output (what the 'security grade' entails), error cases, or dependencies, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool behavior without trial.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('headers' as key-value pairs and 'url' as an alternative). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, but does not contradict it. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('analyze', 'provides') and resources ('HTTP response headers'), covering security, caching, CORS, cookies, and server information. It distinguishes from siblings like 'http_request' (which makes requests) by focusing on header analysis rather than general HTTP operations.

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 analyzing headers for security and other aspects, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'http_request' (which might fetch headers) or 'api_health' (which could check health status). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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