cert_expiry_sweep

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool live-probes domains with a bounded handshake, performs storage/ACME checks, and returns a detailed dictionary with specific keys. This goes well beyond a typical description, though it stops short of mentioning potential network side effects or rate limits.

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 well-structured with a summary, Args, and Returns sections. It is fairly long but every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded summary gives a quick grasp. Minor verbosity in the haproxy note could be trimmed, but it is not wasted space.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It documents all parameters, return keys (certsEvaluated, expired, critical, warning, ok, unknown, certificates, thresholds, renewalHint, note), special modes, and platform-specific behaviors. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results.

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 schema has zero per-property descriptions, but the description's Args section fully explains every parameter (warn_days, critical_days, port, certs, target) with defaults and semantics. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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's function: collecting TLS domain inventory, live-probing served certificates, and bucketing by expiry. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_certificates by emphasizing it's the 'flagship cert sweep' with renewal hints and expiry thresholds.

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 clear context on when to use this tool, including intended targets (traefik/caddy/haproxy), a 'certs' mode for pure analysis, and a note about haproxy's teaching note. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_certificates or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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