list_esc7_vulnerable_certificate_templates

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 mentions a prerequisite (Certipy) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential impacts on the system, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a security-related tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise with only two short phrases, front-loading the main purpose and adding a prerequisite note. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of security vulnerability listing, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter meaning, output format, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain parameter represents, its format, or any constraints, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's basic type information.

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 action ('List') and the specific resource ('ESC7 vulnerable Certificate Template(s)'), which distinguishes it from general listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_esc1_vulnerable_certificate_templates' beyond the ESC7 identifier, which is implied but not stated.

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 includes a prerequisite '[Required: Certipy]', which provides some context on when to use it (i.e., when Certipy is available). However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'find_enabled_certificate_templates' or other ESC vulnerability tools, nor does it specify exclusions or complementary tools.

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