scan_tls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists techniques but does not mention side effects, resource usage, or any constraints. For a tool performing scans, information on rate limits or read-only nature is missing.

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?

Description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists techniques concisely. No 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?

For a complex tool with 8 techniques and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes capabilities but lacks detail on output format or return value structure, which may be needed for an agent to fully understand the result.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Parameters are simple and well-documented in 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?

Description clearly states 'Complete TLS/SSL analysis' and enumerates 8 specific techniques, providing a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling scanning tools by focusing solely on TLS.

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?

Description implies comprehensiveness with '8 techniques in a single call' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like scan_ports or scan_http. No when-not or alternative tool advice.

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