ssl_list

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

Annotations already provide rich behavioral hints (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld). The description adds value by listing returned fields and stating it's a read operation ('[READ]'). No contradictions, but the description does not go beyond annotations significantly.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with '[READ]' for immediate clarity. Every word serves a purpose with no waste.

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 no parameters and presence of output schema (inferred from context), the description sufficiently lists the content of the return (name, type, issuer, expiry date). It is complete for a tool with rich annotations.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not add any parameter information beyond the schema.

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 resource (SSL/TLS certificates on AVI Controller), and specifies the fields returned (name, type, issuer, expiry date). It is distinct from sibling tool 'ssl_expiry_check' which focuses on expiry, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates usage by stating it lists all certificates, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'ssl_expiry_check' for expiry-specific queries. The context of 'AVI Controller' is clear, but could be improved with when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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