arvan_net_tls_cert

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

The description mentions the inspected fields, adding beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true). However, it does not disclose failure modes, connection details, or return format. Minimal additional context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it could include a bit more detail without being verbose.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It omits parameter semantics and behavioral details, leaving gaps for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any parameters. For example, 'host' format, 'port' default usage, or 'timeout' unit are not clarified.

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 'Inspect' and the resource 'TLS certificate served by a host', with specific fields (issuer, SANs, expiry). It distinguishes itself from sibling network inspection tools like arvan_net_dns_lookup.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arvan_net_http_check or arvan_net_port_scan. Neither prerequisites nor exclusions are mentioned.

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