tlscheck

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

The description reveals what the tool returns (certificate details) and implies a network connection. Without annotations, it adds value by listing output fields. It could mention that it is read-only, but the lack of side effects is implied.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, return fields, use cases. Every sentence adds value. No fluff, front-loaded with the action.

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 check tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of return values. Could mention error handling, but not necessary for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only summarizes the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Checks TLS certificate and connection details for a host' with specific return values (cert subject, issuer, expiry, SANs, TLS version, cipher suite). It distinguishes from siblings like dnslookup and portcheck by focusing on TLS.

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 says 'Useful for verifying SSL certificates, checking expiry dates, and debugging TLS issues,' which gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives like cert-specific tools.

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