ct_expiry_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the return fields, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it queries live CT logs, rate limits, or how it handles no results. 'Find' implies non-mutation, but important operational details are absent.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose and return information without redundancy. The description is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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?

Despite a simple 2-parameter, no-output-schema design, the description lacks clarity on what 'expiring' includes (e.g., already expired certs), whether subdomains are covered, and what happens with no matches. It is sufficient for basic use but leaves ambiguities for a monitoring 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning 'N days,' which maps to days_threshold, but it does not explain parameter interactions or edge cases beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('certificates expiring within N days for a domain'), and lists return fields. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ct_search and ct_cert_inventory by focusing on expiration thresholds.

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 expiry monitoring but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like ct_monitor, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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