tls_check_expiry

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

The description states 'by parsing its PEM certificate' but the input parameter is a domain string, implying the tool fetches the certificate online, which is not transparent. No disclosures about behavior on failure, expired certificates, or authentication needs. Lack of annotations further reduces transparency.

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 with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could convey more information within the same length without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple but has an output schema not shown. The description does not mention return values, such as expiry date or status. Given no output schema display, the description should compensate but does not. Also lacks context of prerequisites or related tools.

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% with no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal context by calling the domain a 'TLS domain' but does not specify format, examples, or constraints. The meaning between 'domain' and 'parsing PEM certificate' is inconsistent.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'certificate expiry for a TLS domain', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'tls_check_all_expiry' which checks all domains.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tls_check_all_expiry'. The description does not provide any when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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