arvan_get_ssl_settings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds little beyond stating it retrieves settings. It does not disclose what specific settings are included, the response format, or any potential limits. Given the annotation coverage, the description is adequate but not enriched.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity on parameter semantics, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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?

The tool is simple (1 required parameter, no output schema). The description is minimally sufficient but does not address what the returned settings contain or any prerequisites. Additional context about the domain parameter would improve 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It only mentions 'domain' without explaining whether it expects a domain name, ID, or format. The meaning is implied but not explicitly clarified, providing minimal additional value beyond the parameter name.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('HTTPS/SSL settings for a domain'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'arvan_get_caching_settings' or 'arvan_get_dns_record', which also retrieve domain-related settings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to use this instead of 'arvan_update_ssl_settings' or 'arvan_get_domain'.

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