security_headers_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It specifies the output structure (ok, url, headers, missing, misconfigured, infoLeakage, score, recommendations) and error conditions (Request failed, Invalid url). Although it doesn't explicitly state if it makes HTTP requests, the nature of the tool implies a read-only check.

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 bilingual, with a concise English sentence followed by a structured Chinese section detailing purpose, usage, output, parameters, and errors. It is front-loaded and well-organized, though slightly longer due to bilingual duplication.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input, output fields, and error conditions. However, it does not explain the scoring mechanism or recommendation logic, which could be useful for agents.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'url'. The description repeats the parameter name and requirement (必填) and provides an example, but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks HTTP security response headers for specific headers (CSP, X-Content-Type-Options, etc.) and detects information leakage. This distinguishes it from siblings like security_csp_analyze which focuses only on CSP, and other security scan tools.

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 Chinese section lists specific use cases (pre-deployment compliance, HTTPS/HSTS verification, clickjacking protection, info leakage). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, the context provides clear guidance for when this tool is appropriate.

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