find_certs_in_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the tool reads inline PEM blocks from multiple vendor formats and OPNsense config.xml, and enumerates the certificate health checks it performs. The read-only nature is evident from 'Find,' 'check,' and 'Reads,' though it does not discuss error handling or edge cases like malformed configs.

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 information-dense but not bloated: the first sentence states scope and checks, and the second adds supported formats and the differentiator about web monitors. Every clause contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool's parsing complexity and check variety are well covered, and the output schema presumably handles return-value structure. The only notable gap is the undocumented `role` parameter, though it is optional with a default, so the core invocation with just `config` remains clear enough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful context for `config` and `vendor` through examples like Cisco, EdgeOS, RouterOS, and OPNsense formats, but it never explains the `role` parameter at all, and it does not explicitly link the prose to the parameter names.

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 and resource ('Find every certificate embedded in a device config and check it') and enumerates precise checks: expiry severity buckets, weak RSA keys, MD5/SHA-1 signatures, self-signed leaves, and expiring CAs. It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting these are certificates 'inside the config, not on a port,' which clearly separates it from check_tls_endpoint.

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 establishes when to use the tool: when certificates are embedded in device configs or OPNsense config.xml blobs, and it explicitly contrasts with port-based certificates. However, it never names an alternative tool directly or gives an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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