list_certificates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It starts with '[READ]' and explains the haproxy special case and the optional bounded handshake probe, which is useful context. It doesn't mention potential performance implications of probing or return format, but it discloses the key behavioral differences.

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 well-structured: a summary sentence, a special-case note, and a clear Args section with three bullets. Every sentence adds information, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 three optional params and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, special cases, and all parameter semantics. It doesn't describe the return format or error scenarios, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides only titles and defaults, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains each parameter with meaningful detail: probe triggers a bounded handshake, port specifies the TLS port, and target selects the proxy target. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 lists TLS domain inventory for a traefik/caddy target, with an optional probe for live expiry. The verb 'list' and resource 'certificates' are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like cert_expiry_sweep by focusing on inventory listing rather than a sweep action.

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?

It indicates when to use the tool: for TLS domain inventory in traefik/caddy, and notes a haproxy-specific behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough to infer its usage. However, there are no exclusions or mentions of when not to use it.

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