ct_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only monitor that returns certificate data, which is the core behavioral trait. It does not describe output format, pagination, or whether it only checks exact domain matches, but for a benign lookup tool this is acceptable.

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, with the key action and resource in the first sentence and the return behavior in the second. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff or redundant 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 that the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, what it returns, and the main parameters. It lacks edge-case info like empty results or domain normalization, but it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. Sibling differentiation is not required for completeness.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (domain and days). The description's mention of 'last N days' and 'given domain' aligns with the schema but adds no additional syntax, format, or example details. Thus a 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 tool's function: monitoring Certificate Transparency logs to return recently issued certificates for a domain. It specifies the time window ('within the last N days') and target (domain), which differentiates it from sibling CT tools like ct_expiry_monitor or ct_cert_inventory. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it misses the top bar for distinction.

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 explicitly states the use case: monitoring recently issued certificates for a domain within a specified lookback period. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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