tls_cert_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it performs a verified TLS handshake, uses the system trust store, reports errors for expired/self-signed/wrong chain, and details both success and failure return structures. The 30-day expiration flag and error reason handling are explicitly stated.

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 and well-structured: a short purpose paragraph, then behavioral explanation, then parameter details, then return format. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers all necessary aspects: parameters, success/failure responses, the 30-day threshold, and the verification process. It is complete and leaves no obvious 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds crucial meaning: 'host' uses SNI, 'port' is an integer 1-65535 with default 443. This goes beyond the schema's bare titles and types, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 inspects TLS certificates and flags looming expiry, answering specific questions about expiration, issuer, and covered names. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ping_host, dns_lookup, and http_health by focusing on certificate inspection.

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 directly addresses the questions it answers ('Is this cert about to expire, who issued it, and which names does it cover?') and explains the verification process, implicitly guiding when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios, missing a clear exclusion.

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