analyze_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no indication of what 'security headers' are inspected, whether the target is fetched live, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. 'Basic' hints at a scope limit but does not define it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally sound. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter read-only analysis tool this is minimally viable, and no output schema exists that would need explaining. The real gap is the unresolved overlap with analyze_ssl and the absence of any statement about what the analysis returns or checks.

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 0%, so the description would need to compensate, and it does not mention the url parameter at all. The parameter is nonetheless self-evident from its name and format:uri constraint, so the gap is minor rather than crippling.

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?

States a concrete resource scope — HTTPS and security headers — which is more specific than a bare 'analyze' tautology. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling analyze_ssl, and the qualifier 'basic' leaves the exact scope of the checks ambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer it over analyze_ssl or analyze_technical. The agent must infer its place in the 27-tool sibling set on its own.

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