list_cert_auto_certificates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only list operation with no destructive behavior. However, it omits details like pagination, response size, or performance implications. For a parameterless tool, this is adequate but could be more informative.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

The description lacks explanation of what an 'auto-certificate' is, how results are ordered, or whether there are limits. Without an output schema, more context about return format would be helpful for completeness. However, for a simple list tool, it meets minimum adequacy.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. Baseline score of 4 applies.

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 'List all auto-certificates' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('auto-certificates'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_cert_auto_certificate' (retrieves a single auto-certificate) and 'list_cert_certificates' (lists regular certificates).

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 states the tool lists 'all' auto-certificates, implying no filtering, which is a usage constraint. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_cert_auto_certificate for a specific one) or any prerequisites. This is acceptable given the tool's simplicity but lacks explicit guidance.

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