get_certificates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the config source path, which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, output size limits, or response formatting.

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 compact and front-loaded with the read-only indicator and core action. The '[READ-ONLY]' prefix is somewhat redundant with the annotation, but the overall two-sentence structure is efficient and each element earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with a fully documented parameter and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by indicating what the returned data contains (e.g., certificate details, validity dates), but this is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'firewall' parameter fully documented ('Target firewall name (from firewalls.json). Required when multiple firewalls are configured; optional otherwise.'). The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves SSL/TLS certificates configured on the firewall.' This is clearly distinct from the many sibling get_* tools, and the added config path '/config/shared/certificate' further pins down exactly what is read.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_config_xpath or run_show_command. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name rather than from explicit when/when-not guidance.

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