dossier_tls

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: connects to port 443, performs a TLS handshake with a 5-second timeout, extracts the leaf certificate, and returns structured CheckResult. Slight ambiguity on 'server edge' but overall sufficient.

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—two sentences covering purpose, usage, behavior, and return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. It includes example output fields and error handling, making it complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a detailed parameter description. The tool description does not add new semantic information beyond confirming the parameter is a domain, so baseline score of 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 fetches and inspects TLS certificates for a domain on port 443, which is distinct from sibling tools like dns_lookup or dossier_headers. It provides a specific verb-resource pair and explicitly lists use cases.

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 offers explicit guidance on when to use the tool (verify certificate expiry, issuer, SANs, detect mismatched/self-signed certs) and what it is not (full cipher-suite scanner). This helps the agent choose between siblings.

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