Tls Inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the tool as safe and non-mutating. The description adds value by noting that Delx Agent Utilities are separate from the free witness protocol and may expose x402 utility pricing, which alerts the agent to potential costs. No contradiction with annotations.

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. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and output fields, while the second provides necessary context about pricing and separation from other protocols. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently hints at return values (issuer, subject, SANs, expiry). It also includes behavioral notes about pricing and utility context. However, it could briefly mention that the output includes a trust assessment or warns about renewal risk, which is implicit but not explicit.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters (url, timeout) fully described in the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on the inspection fields rather than parameter details. Thus, 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 inspects TLS issuer, subject, SANs, and expiry to check trust and renewal risk. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and identifies the resource (TLS details of a URL), effectively distinguishing it from sibling utilities by its focus on TLS certificates.

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 TLS inspection but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like util_dns_lookup or util_http_headers_inspect. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and purpose.

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