security_audit

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true indicates no side effects, which is consistent. The description adds value by enumerating the specific security checks performed and the nature of the output (score + fixes), going beyond the annotation.

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 concise, listing checks in a bullet-like format and summarizing the output in one line. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 tool has one parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the audit covers and its output format. It could include possible prerequisites or limitations, but is complete for a simple audit tool.

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?

There is only one parameter 'url' with a schema description of 'URL to check for security'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond this; schema coverage is 100%, so the 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 it runs a security audit on a URL, listing specific checks (HTTPS, HSTS, CSP, etc.) and output (score + fixes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accessibility_audit or seo_audit.

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 by detailing what the audit checks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context for when security headers are the focus.

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