Keel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (issuer, subject, expiry details) but lacks critical behavioral context such as timeout behavior, error handling (e.g., for invalid hosts or network failures), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a mutation-free inspection tool.

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 highly concise and well-structured, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return values. The first sentence states the action and target, and the second lists key return fields, with no redundant or verbose language.

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 tool's moderate complexity (network-based inspection), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits essential context such as error scenarios, performance characteristics (e.g., timeouts), and detailed return format beyond a high-level list. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only documents basic types and defaults (e.g., 'host' as string, 'port' defaulting to 443). The description doesn't explain parameter meanings (e.g., 'host' as domain name or IP, 'port' for non-standard SSL/TLS ports) or constraints, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Baseline 3 applies as the tool has parameters but minimal added value.

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 specific action ('Inspect the SSL/TLS certificate') and the target resource ('on a host'), with no ambiguity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'port_check' or 'http_check' by focusing specifically on certificate inspection rather than general connectivity or HTTP status.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., network access to the host), exclusions (e.g., non-SSL/TLS services), or comparisons to similar tools like 'port_check' for general port verification or 'http_check' for HTTP-specific checks.

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