ssl_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it states it is read-only, completes a TLS handshake but sends no application data, requires no API key, and is rate-limited. It also discloses the grading weights (40% certificate validity, etc.) and what the return report contains.

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 concise at about five sentences, all directly contributing to understanding the tool. It starts with the main purpose and includes usage guidance, behavioral transparency, and return format. No wasted words.

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 tool has only 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains the input (host, port), the process (TLS handshake, grading), the output (text report with grade, KPIs, issues, actions), and the constraints (read-only, no API key, rate-limited). No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds value by clarifying the port default (443) and advising to change only for non-standard ports, which is helpful beyond the schema. It does not add much additional semantics for the host parameter but the schema already covers it.

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 clearly states the tool inspects a host's TLS/SSL certificate and connection, providing a detailed report including grade. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'http_security' and 'security_scan', making its unique purpose clear.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to diagnose certificate or HTTPS-handshake problems for one host' and provides direct alternatives: 'Use http_security instead to audit response security headers, or security_scan for an all-in-one domain report.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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