gatekeeper_list_certificates

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific path context (/etc/letsencrypt/live) and the fact that it lists installed certificates, which is beyond the annotations. It does not disclose the return format, but for a read-only list tool that is acceptable.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is zero wasted text, and every word contributes to clarity.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is sufficient for an agent to know what it does and where. It could specify the return format, but for a list operation the expectation is clear. It covers the necessary context for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. According to the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4, and there is no additional semantic burden.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (installed SSL certificates) with a precise location (/etc/letsencrypt/live). It clearly distinguishes from sibling certificate tools like install, remove, and check status by focusing on listing.

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 verb 'List' implies the usage is to enumerate certificates, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like check_certificate_status or install_certificate. The context is clear enough for a simple read-only operation, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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