pentest_vuln_tls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, yet it never says whether this is an active handshake probe, whether it requires authorization/target reachability, or what the output looks like. It lists the collected data points, which is some help, but leaves the operational profile of a network-facing scanner undisclosed.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then the output contents. Nothing is redundant, though the terseness comes at the cost of missing routing and parameter detail.

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 simple two-parameter scan tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what will be collected. It is still incomplete on the two things an agent most needs: how it differs from the sibling TLS tools and what the unspecified parameters accept.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description does not compensate: it never names 'host' or 'port', does not specify whether host takes a hostname, IP, or URL, and does not confirm the 443 default or when to override it. The only source of parameter meaning is the bare schema titles.

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 uses a concrete verb-plus-resource ('Audit TLS') and enumerates the specific data returned: protocol versions, certificate details, and deprecated-version findings. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related siblings pentest_vuln_testssl and pentest_vuln_sslscan, which an agent cannot tell apart from this.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when this should be preferred over pentest_vuln_testssl or pentest_vuln_sslscan, no prerequisite (e.g. scope check, reachable host), and no exclusion such as non-TLS targets. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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