monitor_vpn_certificate_valid

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions 'check validity status' without disclosing read-only nature, permissions, side effects, or error behavior. Very minimal.

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?

Single sentence with 8 words, front-loaded with main action. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With one optional parameter and an output schema, description is minimally adequate but lacks context about what 'validity status' entails (e.g., expiration, revocation). Could provide more behavioral context.

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?

Input schema has one parameter (vdom) with a descriptive text covering name, default, and special value. Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds no parameter info beyond schema.

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 'Check validity status of all VPN-related certificates' clearly states the action (check), resource (validity status), and scope (all VPN certificates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vpn_certificate_*_list (listing) and other monitor_ tools (different resources).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., certificate listing tools). The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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