tls_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the types of information returned and constrains operation to in-scope targets, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or error handling behavior.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, key outputs, and a usage hint. It is front-loaded with the core action, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and important outputs. It lacks details on return format or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 must compensate. It implies 'target' is a host and mentions default port 443, but does not fully describe parameter semantics or constraints. It adds some value beyond the raw schema but not complete clarity.

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 a host's TLS certificate and lists specific details returned (subject, issuer, validity, etc.), with a strong emphasis on Subject Alternative Names for recon. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on TLS inspection and operating only on in-scope targets.

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 TLS certificate inspection and notes 'In scope only' as a constraint. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fingerprint or dns_lookup, nor does it specify conditions when not to use it.

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