Csp Audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether this is read-only, whether it modifies configuration, whether it needs a target URL, or what it reports. The only inference is that 'audit' implies a read operation, which is weak.

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 short phrase with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It is front-loaded but front-loads only a restatement of the name.

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 an audit tool with siblings like security_scan and security_audit and no annotations, the description should clarify scope (e.g., scans site CSP headers) and what is returned. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the purpose and behavior are still missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so by the rules the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema is self-consistent.

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 'Content Security Policy audit' merely restates the tool name csp_audit. A name-to-description mapping adds no information about what the tool actually does, what it audits, or what it returns. It is a tautology rather than a specific verb+resource statement.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous other audit/scan siblings (security_scan, security_audit, config_security_check, xss_scan, etc.). The description offers no context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.

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