agent-tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It compensates well by explicitly enumerating return values ('certificate subject, issuer, expiry, SANs, TLS version, and cipher suite'), giving the agent clear expectations of what data the tool yields. It does not mention side effects or authentication requirements, though these are minimal for a TLS handshake probe.

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 consists of three tightly crafted sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 details return values, and sentence 3 provides usage context. Information is front-loaded with the core action, and no sentence could be removed without losing material value.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, networking domain) and absence of an output schema, the description provides adequate completeness by enumerating the specific certificate fields and connection metadata returned. It compensates for the missing output schema by detailing return values in the description itself.

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 100% description coverage, documenting all three parameters (host, port, timeout_sec) with defaults and constraints. The description mentions 'host' implicitly but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, 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 opens with a specific verb ('Checks') and clearly identifies the resource ('TLS certificate and connection details') and target ('host'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like `dnslookup` (DNS resolution), `portcheck` (generic TCP connectivity), and `httpreq` (application-layer HTTP requests) by specifying TLS/SSL-specific functionality.

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 third sentence provides clear positive guidance on when to use the tool ('Useful for verifying SSL certificates, checking expiry dates, and debugging TLS issues'). However, it lacks explicit negative guidance or named alternatives for when NOT to use it (e.g., 'Do not use for HTTP content retrieval; use httpreq instead').

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