Tls Info

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

Discloses that the tool opens TLS connections, has a default concurrency of 300, and scope-filters results before storage. This goes beyond the basic readOnly annotation, though it does not fully clarify whether storing results conflicts with readOnlyHint.

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 concise sentences convey purpose, behavior, and operational constraints without redundancy. The structure is straightforward and 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?

Provides sufficient context for a simple one-parameter tool: what it returns (SANs), that results are scope-filtered, and that network connections are used. The absence of output format details is acceptable given the output schema is noted as present.

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 only parameter 'target' is a plain string with no schema description. The description mentions 'target' but does not specify expected format (e.g., hostname, IP, URL) or any constraints.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Read TLS certificates and pull subject-alternative names') and the resource (TLS certificates). It distinguishes the tool from related siblings like tls_audit by focusing on SAN extraction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tls_audit, http_probe, or port_scan. The description mentions concurrency and scope-filtering but does not explain situations that favor this tool over others.

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