get_autossl_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a no-annotation tool, this is insufficient detail.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No filler or redundant phrasing; every word contributes to clarity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of info, but it does not explain what 'status' or 'pending requests' entails (e.g., does it return a list, a current state?). While adequate for a simple status check, it leaves room for ambiguity about return values.

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 the input schema offers no semantic content. The description adds meaning by naming the outputs ('status and pending requests'), which meets the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb 'Check' and a specific resource 'AutoSSL status and pending requests'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trigger_autossl (which triggers) and get_ssl_status (which likely shows per-domain SSL) by focusing on AutoSSL's overall status.

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?

Usage is implied—use this tool to inspect AutoSSL status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_ssl_status or trigger_autossl. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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