ct_unauthorized_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the detection mechanism and that it flags unauthorized certs, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what external resources it relies on (e.g., CT log APIs, DNS), or how it handles cases like missing CAA records.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and core logic. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

While the description captures the core function, it lacks details about output format or error conditions, and there is no output schema to clarify return values. It also does not explain how the optional 'allowed_cas' parameter modifies behavior, leaving the tool somewhat underspecified for complete use.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameters, including descriptions for 'domain' and 'allowed_cas'. The tool description does not add additional parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 ('Detect') and resource ('potentially unauthorized certificates') with a clear method (cross-referencing CT logs with CAA DNS records). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ct_search or ct_check_caa by combining both data sources.

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 the tool is for detecting unauthorized certificates but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. It offers no comparisons to sibling tools like ct_check_caa or ct_monitor, leaving the usage context to inference.

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