ssl_list_domain_certs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'List' (a mild read-only signal) but does not disclose what set of certificates is returned (active only, all history, Let's Encrypt vs self-signed), whether the domain must already have certificates, or any admin-privilege effects. The impersonate parameter hints at admin login-as but its behavioral implications are not explained.

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 compact and well-structured: a single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a clean Args block. Every line earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description adequately documents both parameters and the core purpose for a simple 2-parameter tool, but it leaves behavioral context (what certificates are included, side effects of impersonation) and sibling-selection guidance unaddressed. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for reliable tool selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does. It adds real meaning beyond the schema: 'domain' is defined as a fully-qualified domain with an example format, and 'impersonate' is explained as an optional admin login-as actor. Both parameters receive semantic context that the bare schema (type/title/default) lacks.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List TLS certificates') with a clear scope ('installed on a user domain'). The 'user domain' qualifier distinguishes this from the many server-level SSL siblings (ssl_server_*, ssl_admin_list), and the verb 'List' separates it from mutation tools like ssl_reissue_domain and ssl_delete_domain_cert.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the numerous SSL siblings. There is no mention of when to prefer ssl_get_cert_files, ssl_admin_list, or how this differs from server-scoped certificate tools. With roughly 30 SSL-related siblings, an agent gets no explicit routing help.

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