Test HTTP reachability

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

Description lacks details beyond the action. No annotations are provided, so it should disclose behavioral traits like side effects (presumably none), authentication needs, or what constitutes reachability. The word 'test' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a simple test tool.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the output represents (e.g., boolean or list of reachable/unreachable). It omits this critical information, reducing completeness despite the tool's simplicity.

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 parameter 'domains' is well-defined by the schema (array of strings, required). The description adds minimal meaning by linking it to testing HTTP reachability, but does not elaborate further. Schema coverage is 0%, but the parameter is self-explanatory.

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?

Description clearly states verb (test), resource (domains), and context (before requesting a cert). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings, as no other tool explicitly tests HTTP reachability.

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 phrase 'before requesting a cert' provides clear usage context, implying it should be used prior to certificate creation tools. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternative tools.

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