tls_cert_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, discloses exactly where certs are found, defines the empty-list case, and names the failure mode (openssl_not_available). It stops short of stating permission requirements on config files or how self-signed certs affect the result beyond the field name.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then safety, then return shape and error. Every clause adds information; nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does, giving the full JSON key list plus the empty-list case and the error code. For a single-parameter read-only tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents instance_id and its '<account>/<name>' format thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no extra credit.

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 and resource ('Discover TLS certificates'), names the discovery sources (certbot live dirs, nginx/apache config references), and scopes it to one instance. No sibling tool covers TLS certificates, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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 conveys context (per-instance discovery, read-only) so usage is implied, but it never states when to prefer this over a general inspection tool like run_command or security_audit, nor any prerequisite such as needing access to the host. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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