tls_cert_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It declares read-only behavior, details the return JSON structure, and mentions a specific error condition. This provides adequate transparency about the tool's operation.

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 sentences with no redundancy: first states primary action, second notes read-only, third details output and error. Highly efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides clear output format, error conditions, and operational scope. No gaps remain for effective agent usage.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter with description 'Instance ID or name.'). The description adds context about the tool's operation on an instance but does not elaborate on the parameter's format or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it discovers TLS certificates on one instance, checking specific locations (certbot live dirs, nginx/apache configs) and reports expiry. This is a specific verb+resource, and considering sibling tools, it uniquely identifies TLS certificate checking.

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 notes the tool is read-only and provides basic error handling, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling tool covers TLS cert checking, usage context is implied but not explicit.

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