scan_ssl_testssl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions the tool detects various weaknesses but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network impact, duration, need for privileges), whether it's read-only or invasive, or any rate limits. The description implies a scanning action but lacks transparency on operational constraints.

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 compact, with a brief overview sentence, a usage trigger, and a bulleted list of detection categories. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses concise phrasing, making it easy to scan.

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 it scans for many vulnerabilities, the description is relatively complete with a clear list of what it detects. However, it lacks information about output specifics (though output schema exists, which reduces burden) and operational considerations like runtime or permissions. For a moderate complexity tool, it's adequate but not overly rich.

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% for both parameters, providing clear descriptions of target and port with defaults. The description adds context by mentioning 'port 443 or other HTTPS', but doesn't add further semantic value beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 analyzes SSL/TLS configuration using testssl.sh, specifying the target context (port 443 or HTTPS service). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on SSL/TLS analysis rather than general scanning, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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?

It provides a specific trigger condition (when Nmap identifies port 443 or another HTTPS service) and lists detected vulnerability categories. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like scan_nuclei for web vulnerabilities, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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