security_cert_check

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

The [SAFE] prefix hints at read-only behavior, but there are no official annotations. The description does not disclose network requirements, potential failures (e.g., DNS resolution, connection timeouts), or return value behavior. It adds marginal transparency beyond schema field names.

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?

Single sentence with a safety prefix. Every word earns its place. No redundancy, and the key action and resource are front-loaded.

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 check tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., certificate details, expiration date, chain) or error conditions. The agent cannot infer the output format or potential failures from the description alone.

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 description coverage is 0%. The tool description mentions 'host' in the context of checking TLS certificate for a host, implying the 'host' parameter is the target domain. However, the 'port' parameter with default 443 is not explained. The description partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but leaves port semantics unclear.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks TLS certificate details for a host, mentioning expiration. The verb 'Check' and resource 'TLS certificate details' are specific enough to distinguish from siblings like security_compliance_check or security_cve_scan. However, the phrase 'details' is vague; it does not list specific attributes like subject, issuer, or validity period beyond expiration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., network access), nor does it suggest when not to use it (e.g., for internal certs vs public ones). No sibling tools are referenced.

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