caddy_tls

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: write scope is restricted to policies[0].issuers[0], writes only occur when the issuer module is 'acme', 'ech_status' is read-only, and profile validity is CA-defined. This fully discloses side effects and limitations beyond the annotation hints.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: actions are front-loaded, followed by compatibility notes, write-scope constraints, and a concrete routing instruction to a sibling tool. No filler or restatement of schema details.

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 the complexity of five actions with different constraints, the description fully covers behavior, version requirements, write targets, and fallback routing to caddy_config_set. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear action-level descriptions.

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 the schema already documents parameters, but the description adds meaning beyond it: the profile parameter's version requirement, CA-defined valid values, and the Let's Encrypt 'shortlived' example. This enriches the agent's understanding without redundant repetition.

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 leads with a clear verb-resource pairing ('Get or configure TLS/HTTPS settings') and enumerates every supported action with specific targets (ACME email, CA URL, profile, ECH status). It distinguishes itself from caddy_config_set by naming the exact condition under which that sibling should be used instead.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it works on fresh or existing instances, but for multi-policy TLS configs or non-ACME first issuers it directs the agent to use caddy_config_set. It also flags version-dependent actions (Caddy 2.10+), leaving no ambiguity about applicability.

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