tls_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states what is checked (including flagging legacy protocols), what is returned (a grade and structured findings), and the fact that it is a read-only inspection. It does not mention any side effects or rate limits, but none are expected for a network inspection tool. The disclosure is thorough.

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 structured into clear sections (summary, checks, args, returns) and front-loads the primary purpose. It is somewhat lengthy due to the enumeration of checks, but every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.

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 that inspects many aspects of TLS, the description lists every check performed, describes the return dict structure, and explains all parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without needing additional context. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's return format.

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% since the schema only provides types and defaults, but the description's 'Args' section fully explains each parameter: host with an example, port with default, and timeout with its purpose. This completely compensates for the schema gap, giving the agent all needed semantic context.

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: 'Inspect a host's SSL/TLS configuration and grade it.' It enumerates the exact checks performed (certificate, protocols, ciphers, HSTS, etc.), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like port_scan or http_headers_audit. An agent can immediately understand the tool's scope.

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 implies usage for TLS configuration assessment but never explicitly states when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. For example, it doesn't say 'use this when you need TLS details, not for general port reachability (use port_scan).' The guidance is implicit through the detailed checks, but not explicit.

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