list_certificates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the haproxy target returns a teaching note instead of probing, and probing is described as "bounded." These are real traits an agent should know before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and core purpose, followed by a compact target note and an Args block that maps one-to-one to the parameters. The awkward line-wrapping adds noise but every sentence carries information.

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, the description does sketch what comes back (domain inventory and, on haproxy, a teaching note). For a safe read-only tool with all three optional params documented, this is nearly complete, missing only the shape of the inventory result on non-haproxy targets.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so reasonably: probe (handshake each domain, bounded), port (TLS port, default 443), and target (proxy target name from config, omit for default). All three params gain meaning beyond the bare schema, though valid ranges/formats are not specified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("TLS domain inventory") and clarifies behavior per target type (traefik/caddy vs haproxy). However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling cert_expiry_sweep, which also deals with expiry probing, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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: an agent can infer this is for inventorying TLS domains and optionally probing expiry, and the target-type notes give context. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no routing toward cert_expiry_sweep or list_routes for related needs.

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