ssl_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal what information is checked/returned (certificate attributes), which is useful. However, it lacks context on operational behavior such as timeouts, errors for invalid hosts, or network prerequisites. It also doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, though 'check' implies it.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Check the SSL/TLS certificate of a host') and follows with a concise list of features. It has no redundant words or filler, making it highly 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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it names the host and lists the certificate details that will be returned. It does not explain failure modes or edge cases, but these are less critical for a straightforward check tool. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to decide and invoke 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters (host and port) with descriptions and a default for port. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no format constraints or relationship between host and port). Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Check' with the resource 'SSL/TLS certificate of a host', and enumerates specific attributes (validity, issuer, expiry date, days until expiry, SANs, chain, cipher, protocol). This distinguishes it from sibling network tools like dns_lookup, ip_info, whois_lookup, and http_ping, which target different aspects.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose—use it when you need certificate details—but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention of when not to use it. The description does not name sibling tools or offer exclusions, so it falls short of a clear guideline.

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