tls_handshake_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that it pulls specific counters and provides severity assessment, but does not state whether it is read-only, mutates state, or requires permissions. The description is adequate for a read operation but lacks explicit safety traits.

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 very concise with only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently communicates the tool's functionality and output structure without redundancy.

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 no parameters and a clear output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how it works (pulling from get_statistics), and what it returns (error type, count, percentage, severity). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though the output schema might provide further structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The input schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds meaning by hinting at what the output contains (error type, count, percentage, severity), which is sufficient.

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 specifies a 'focused view of TLS error statistics with severity assessment', clearly stating the verb ('view'), resource ('TLS error statistics'), and additional value ('severity assessment'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_statistics' and 'tls_statistics' by noting it only returns error-related counters with severity levels.

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 the tool is for obtaining TLS error statistics with severity, which is clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for general TLS statistics use 'tls_statistics' or 'get_statistics'). This is a minor gap given the sibling context.

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