odoo_cert_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly and highlights a configuration requirement. However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, or what happens if no pinned cert exists. This is moderate transparency.

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 two sentences, directly stating purpose and a key requirement. It is concise with no unnecessary words. The structure is front-loaded, making the tool's function immediately clear.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a requirement. However, the missing parameter explanation and lack of error behavior details prevent full completeness. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema has one parameter ('alias') with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain this parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its role (likely the connection alias). Since coverage is low, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 returns pinned SSL certificate details (issuer, subject, notAfter, fingerprint) for a connection. It also explains the use case for verifying self-signed certs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'odoo_cert_refresh', which could cause confusion.

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 provides a clear usage scenario (verify which self-signed cert is trusted) and a prerequisite ('Requires verify_ssl=False on the connection'). This helps the agent decide when to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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