ssl_admin_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the underlying endpoint, legacy-API status, licensing requirement, and authorization requirement. 'List' and 'overview' imply read-only behavior, though an explicit no-side-effects statement would have made this even clearer.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the scope statement, the endpoint context, the access requirements, and the intended workflow. The most identifying information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only overview tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It specifies the endpoint, the required access level, the Pro Pack dependency, and the downstream use case, with no critical operational gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. According to the calibration baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled by the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every user/domain certificate the Admin SSL page shows.' It further identifies the exact legacy endpoint (CMD_ADMIN_SSL?json=yes) and clarifies that it is not part of the New JSON API, which helps distinguish it from sibling SSL tools.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use this to see which customer domains are missing, expired, or valid before calling ssl_admin_reissue.' It also states access prerequisites (Pro Pack and a login key allowed to run CMD_ADMIN_SSL). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.

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