get_certificate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'retrieve' but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, if it's idempotent, what happens if the certificate doesn't exist, or the format of returned information. For a tool handling sensitive data like private keys, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resources. There's no wasted wording, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating key components). It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves sensitive data (certificate and private key). It doesn't cover authentication needs, error conditions, return format, or security implications. For a 2-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('siteId' and 'id') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying retrieval of certificate-related data. Since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'retrieve' and specifies the resources: 'certificate, private key, and certificate information'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_certificates' (which lists certificates) and 'delete_certificate' (which removes them). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'set_certificate' or 'apply_certificate', which might involve similar resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a certificate ID from 'list_certificates'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_certificate_quota' or 'list_certificates'. Usage is implied only by the action 'retrieve'.

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