TLS certificate sweep

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds that the tool sorts results by soonest expiry, flags near-expiry certs, and auto-extracts domains from config files, providing useful behavioral context.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then input options, then output behavior. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description hints at the output format (sorted list with flags) but could be more explicit. It adequately covers the tool's capabilities for a batch check 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?

The description adds specifics not in the schema: it names supported config file types (nginx, Caddy, Traefik, compose) and clarifies that paths trigger automatic domain extraction, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool checks TLS certificate expiry across many domains, distinguishes from siblings like tls_inspect (single domain) by emphasizing batch operation and automatic domain extraction from config files.

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 when to use (batch checks) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tls_inspect for single-domain checks, or mention when not to use (e.g., for other certificate types).

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