ssl_inspector__inspect_ssl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It implies a read-only network inspection but never states that it opens connections to the remote host, whether it can time out, or that the 'probes' option performs additional handshakes against the target (that detail lives only in the schema). Adequate but missing real behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the verb, the checked resources, and the scope with zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 an inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about what the results look like (findings, grades, raw cert fields) or whether the scan is passive. The fully documented params compensate partially, but the return shape and behavioral envelope remain undocumented.

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%, so all four parameters (host, port, probes, checkHsts) are already well documented, including defaults and the meaning of probes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and enumerates the resources examined: TLS certificate, cipher suite, and protocol configuration. The phrase 'for a single domain' implicitly distinguishes it from the ssl_inspector__inspect_ssl_bulk sibling, though it never names that sibling 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?

Usage is only implied by the 'single domain' scoping — an agent can infer that multiple domains should go to inspect_ssl_bulk. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or mention of the other SSL siblings (check_cert_expiry, get_cert_info) that overlap in purpose.

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