tools_sslscan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the scanning behavior (probe, enumerate) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., network traffic, log footprint, output format). With zero annotations, more depth is expected for a 4.

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?

Description is concise (6-7 sentences) with a logical structure: purpose, behavior, then parameter list with examples. No redundant information.

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?

Tool is simple (3 parameters) and output schema exists, so description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, examples, and use cases. Could mention network requirements or potential noise, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: target (hostname/IP), port (default 443), additional_args with examples. Examples show multiple usage patterns, fully compensating for 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?

Description clearly states it executes sslscan to test SSL/TLS ciphers and certificate configuration, enumerating cipher suites, protocols, and certificate details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tools_nmap (general port scanning) and tools_ssh_audit (SSH-specific).

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?

Description implies usage for TLS security assessments by listing use cases (weak ciphers, expired certs, misconfiguration) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. No exclusion or guidance on prerequisites.

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