ssl_list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds details about the return format (table with columns Name, Subject CN, Expiry, Type, total count) and constraints (no pagination/filtering, full set in one call). This extends beyond the annotations.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: the [READ] tag, the verb-resource pairing, the return description, the behavioral note, and the usage guidance. No extraneous text.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it returns, how to use it, and when to choose an alternative. It is fully complete for this tool.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds context by stating that no parameters are needed and that it connects to the default controller from config, which explains why no parameters exist.

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 uses a clear verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'SSL/TLS certificates'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ssl_expiry_check by explicitly stating use cases for each.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('certificate inventory or to find a certificate's exact name') and when to use the alternative ('ssl_expiry_check for certificates expiring within the next N days'). It also notes that no parameters are required.

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