ct_cert_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the data source (CT logs), grouping logic (active/expired, wildcard/specific, CA), and return values (total count, active count, unique subdomains, CA distribution). This gives the agent a solid behavioral model, though it doesn't mention potential limitations or side effects, which are minimal for a read-only inventory operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and specifies both grouping dimensions and output fields without unnecessary 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 the simple schema and lack of output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 input schema already describes the single 'domain' parameter with an example. The tool description adds 'for a domain' but does not significantly enhance semantic understanding beyond the schema's existing description, warranting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 states 'Build a full certificate inventory from CT logs for a domain' with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('certificate inventory'), and it clearly differentiates from sibling CT tools by focusing on inventory grouping and summary counts.

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 usage for obtaining a comprehensive certificate inventory, but it does not explicitly reference alternative tools like ct_search or ct_wildcard_audit. It provides clear context but no exclusion criteria.

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