fsv_quick_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it explicitly says no payloads are sent, calls the check passive and safe, and requires authorized=true after user confirmation. It does not discuss rate limits, result retention, or other operational details, but the core safety and authorization behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and safety profile, then lists the checks efficiently. Every sentence contributes useful scope or usage information, and the authorization instruction is placed clearly at the end.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the key behavioral and authorization context for a passive security check. It is nearly complete, though it could more explicitly scope when this tool is preferable to active-scan siblings.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It explains that target is a single URL and clarifies the authorization condition for authorized=true, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. It does not specify URL format or validation details, which is a minor gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a fast, passive check of a single URL. It also enumerates the checks performed, making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings such as fsv_scan or fsv_waf_check, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives clear usage context with 'Safe for a first look' and specifies the authorization prerequisite for the authorized parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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