list_certificates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: RSA keys under 2048 bits are flagged weak, FortiGate-VM eval licenses produce 512-bit factory certs, and bundled public CAs are excluded by default. It does not cover permissions or result volume/pagination, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information (output fields, weakness flagging with rationale, bundle default), and the core purpose is front-loaded. Slightly dense but free of filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply everything, and it does cover scope, returned attributes, and the notable default. Missing only error/permission behavior and result-size expectations for a large inventory call.

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% (baseline 3), and the description adds genuine meaning beyond it by disclosing the default-exclusion behavior of include_bundle and the size of the bundle (~150 CAs). The vdom and name_contains semantics are left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (local and CA certificates) and enumerates what is returned: key type/size, validity, usage flags. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling download_certificate, which retrieves rather than enumerates.

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 rather than stated: the tool is for inspecting certificate inventory, and the include_bundle clause implies the default hides bundled CAs. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., download_certificate) or prerequisite guidance.

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