ssh_tls_check

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral details: the handshake is executed on the server so it sees internal-only hosts, null fields mean the check didn't run (not that the certificate is bad), and the sudo flag affects whether renewal config can be read. These are precisely the kind of nuances an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Four sentences, each adding essential information: purpose and perspective, reported fields, error semantics, and usage order. No filler or repetition; the description is tightly structured and front-loads the core function.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the operational context (server-side view), the meaning of ambiguous output (null), the effect of sudo, and the recommended invocation order. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is omitted.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description reinforces the meaning of 'sudo' and 'domain' in context but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 identifies the action (checks TLS certificate), the resource (a domain), and the specific angle (from the server's perspective). It also differentiates from siblings by naming ssh_audit_baseline as a prerequisite, making the tool's role within the suite explicit.

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 states explicit sequencing ('Run it per domain, once ssh_audit_baseline has named the sites') and indicates the per-domain granularity. It lacks an explicit list of when not to use it, but the context is clear enough; the only minor gap is not naming alternative tools for other checks.

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