get_https

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only 'Get HTTPS configuration' and does not disclose whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed, what the return shape contains, or what happens with an invalid id. The implied read operation is not elaborated in any useful way.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Four words cannot meaningfully describe a parameterized configuration getter with an ambiguous id.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and a required but unexplained id, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It should at least identify what the id represents and what configuration is returned.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the single required parameter is just a number named 'id'. The description does not explain what entity the id refers to (website, HTTPS rule, certificate, etc.) or expected format, leaving the parameter semantically unusable from the description alone.

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 states a verb and resource ('Get HTTPS configuration'), but the scope is vague: it does not say whether this is a global HTTPS configuration or a per-website/per-domain one, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_website_ssl or update_https. The 'id' parameter is an unexplained number, leaving the object of the configuration ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_https, get_website_ssl, get_nginx_conf, or other SSL/HTTPS-related siblings. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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