verificar_certificado_ssl

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists outputs but does not disclose behavioral traits such as network connectivity, error handling, timeouts, or whether it accepts IP addresses. The description lacks details on side effects or prerequisites.

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, with a clear verb-led first sentence, a bullet-like list of returns, and a separate args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers input parameters and expected outputs sufficiently. Minor gaps include lack of error explanations or edge cases (e.g., invalid domains). Given the output schema exists, the description adequately supports tool selection and 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with an 'Args' section that clarifies each parameter, including examples for 'dominio' and default value for 'puerto'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type and title.

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 inspects SSL/TLS certificates of a domain and lists the specific return fields (validity, expiration, cipher, etc.). The name and description together uniquely identify the tool's purpose among sibling tools like consultar_dns or whois_dominio.

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 implies usage for certificate inspection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparison with sibling tools like escanear_puertos or verificar_headers_seguridad are provided.

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