Tls Audit

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) indicate safety, but the description enriches this by detailing the exact network traffic produced (standard TLS handshake + one HTTP GET) and explicitly stating that vulnerability tests are not run due to sanitizer denial. This adds context beyond the annotations, making the tool's behavior transparent.

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 and well-structured: it opens with the primary purpose, then provides a brief 'Passive.' note, and follows with a clear explanation of what is not run and why, plus a pointer to alternatives. No redundant or irrelevant information is present. It is front-loaded with the key use case.

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's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (noted in context signals), the description is complete for an agent to decide when to use it. It covers the primary action, safety profile, exclusions, and points to alternatives. It does not need to detail return values or internal mechanics, as those are handled by the schema or are not necessary for selection.

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 input schema has two parameters (target, port) but zero description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters directly. While the parameter names and tool context imply target is a host and port is the TLS port (with default 443), the lack of explicit explanation means the agent must infer semantics. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving a gap.

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: 'Audit a host's TLS configuration: protocols, ciphers, certificate, headers.' It specifies the resource (host's TLS configuration) and the verb (audit), and lists the specific aspects covered. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing its passive nature, which separates it from active vulnerability scanners in the sibling list.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Passive. Every check run here is a standard TLS handshake plus one HTTP GET — the same traffic any browser produces.' It also explains what it does not do: testssl's vulnerability battery is not run and is denied, and it directs to 'exploit-phase validators' for vulnerability proving. This provides clear usage boundaries and alternatives.

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