tls_check_all_expiry

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains it queries TLS domains, parses PEM, and returns a summary. It does not mention side effects or read-only nature, but it's implied it's a read operation. Could add 'no changes made' for clarity.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by bullet-like details. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Well-structured and efficient.

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?

Output schema exists but description still summarizes output fields. Covers domain, expiry, days, status. Missing prerequisites (e.g., TLS configured), but overall adequate for a simple scan tool.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage), so description need not add parameter info. Baseline for no params is 4. Description correctly omits parameter details.

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?

Clearly states it performs a bulk certificate expiry scan across all configured TLS domains. Differentiates from sibling 'tls_check_expiry' by checking all domains, listing output fields and status categories.

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?

While it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, the implication is clear that this is for a comprehensive scan of all domains, contrasting with a potential single-domain check. However, no explicit when-not or alternative tool mention.

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