Get Force HTTPS Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description does not add behavioral context beyond those annotations, but it does not contradict them either. Since annotations carry the transparency burden, a neutral score is appropriate.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the verb, resource, and scope with no filler. It is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description and schema together are sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the simple 'status' semantics, though a hint about the return shape could improve completeness.

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 schema describes env_id as 'The environment ID' and coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The phrase 'for an environment' only repeats what the schema already conveys.

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 specific action ('Get'), the resource ('Force HTTPS status'), and the scope ('for an environment'). It also distinguishes this tool from its sibling kinsta_tools_force-https_set, which is a write operation.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving, not modifying, the Force HTTPS status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the read/write distinction from the set sibling is self-evident.

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