cwp_autossl_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about read-only behavior, permissions required, pagination, or result shape. For a read operation this is a notable gap even if the risk is low.

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?

A single short sentence that is fully front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient, though the word 'all' is an unnecessary qualifier that creates ambiguity.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the filtering behavior and any return-shape hint, which would help at little cost.

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% and the single optional domain filter is documented there, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing (and its 'all' wording is mildly at odds with the existence of a filter), but it does not actively mislead.

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 clear verb and resource (list SSL certificates), which is enough to distinguish it from the install/renew/delete siblings by action. However, the word 'all' is slightly misleading given the schema exposes a domain filter, and no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus cwp_autossl_install, cwp_autossl_renew, or cwp_autossl_delete, nor any prerequisite or scoping guidance. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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