tls_certificate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool performs a network connection (behavior) and reports specific information. It also mentions how invalid certs are handled (reported with reason), which is a behavioral nuance. It doesn't mention timeouts or error handling beyond invalid certs, but the core behavior is disclosed. The description does not contradict any annotations since none are provided.

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, two sentences, and front-loaded with the main action ('Connect to host:port and read its TLS certificate'). It lists key output details and then handles edge cases. There is no waste, but it could be more structured (e.g., separate sentences for parameters and outputs). Overall efficient.

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 complexity (network call, multiple output fields) and lack of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does, the key outputs, and how invalid certs are reported. It doesn't mention timeouts or rate limits, but for a read-only tool, this is acceptable. It might benefit from noting that the connection is outbound and could require network access, but not essential.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameters. The description implies the 'host' parameter is the target host and 'port' is the port to connect to (default 443), but does not explicitly detail these parameters. It adds some context by mentioning 'host:port' in the description, but for an agent, the parameter semantics are mostly clear from the schema names and defaults. The description could be more explicit about the meaning of each parameter, but it is adequate.

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 connects to a host:port and reads its TLS certificate, listing specific details like issuer, validity dates, days until expiry, SANs, and negotiated TLS version. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on TLS certificate inspection, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 when to use it: when you need TLS certificate details for a given host and port. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but among siblings, none are about certificates, so it is clear this is the tool for that task. It also notes invalid certs are reported with reason, providing context for edge cases.

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