audit_headers

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

The description lacks critical behavioral details beyond 'Audit'. It does not clarify that it makes HTTP requests (relevant to destructiveHint=true), or that results may vary over time. The destructiveHint annotation is not explained and seems inconsistent with a read-like operation.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences that cover purpose, specifics, and output. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the basic action and output (score/grade) but omits context like network access requirements, interpretation of the score, and potential side effects. Without an output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter is well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Audit') and target ('HTTP security headers of a URL'), listing specific headers checked and output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on network scanning or port inspection, though it could explicitly state it does not perform deeper vulnerability scanning.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssl_inspect or check_cves. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., URL must be accessible) or typical use cases.

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