Inspect certificates and manage certificate exceptions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description describes mutation of browser state: adding overrides, clearing overrides, and an explicitly irreversible 'clear-all-overrides' operation. This directly contradicts the annotation. The incidental facts (removeCert absent in this build) are useful but cannot offset a false read-only claim.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause. The second sentence is a dense 'MEASURED:' block of internal API names (addCert/getCerts/importCertsFromFile, rememberValidityOverride/clearValidityOverride) whose value to an agent choosing an action is marginal, though the note that removeCert is absent earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description never indicates what 'list' or 'list-overrides' return, which matters for a read-heavy tool. It does cover the destructive-action precondition, but a mutation tool with a contradictory read-only annotation leaves an agent unable to form a correct safety model.

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 100%, so host/port/action/confirm are already documented, including the confirm requirement. The description restates the confirm:true precondition and names the nsI APIs behind each action but adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb pair and resource: read the certificate database and manage per-host certificate exceptions, with the underlying APIs enumerated. It never differentiates from siblings like browser_list_cert_overrides or browser_relax_certificate_checks, so an agent cannot tell which one is the intended entry point from the description alone.

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 statement of when to pick this tool over browser_list_cert_overrides, browser_list_certificates-style siblings, or browser_relax_certificate_checks. The only conditional ('clearing all overrides ... requires confirm:true') is a parameter rule, not usage guidance relative to alternatives.

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