ssl_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns certificate details, but does not disclose behaviors such as error handling for invalid domains, timeouts, rate limits, or whether it performs network calls. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 short and front-loaded, with two sentences that cover purpose and output. It is efficiently written, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and details). No verbosity.

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not detailed here), the description is mostly adequate for a low-complexity tool. However, it lacks input parameter explanations and usage context, making it incomplete for an agent that needs precise guidance.

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 description does not elaborate on the parameters (domain and port). It only mentions 'for a domain', but does not explain that domain is required, port is optional with default 443, or any constraints. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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's function: inspecting SSL/TLS certificate details for a domain. It lists specific return information (validity, issuer, SANs, expiry, cipher info), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like whois_lookup or dns_enumeration.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context of SSL inspection is implied, there is no mention of when it is appropriate or when to choose another tool (e.g., for general domain info use whois_lookup).

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