ssh_tls_check

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that the handshake is made from the server itself, so it sees hosts closed to the outside, and clarifies that null fields mean the check could not run rather than certificate failure. This is meaningful behavioral context the annotation does not provide.

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 information-dense and front-loads the core purpose, then adds null semantics and usage sequencing. The first sentence is a bit long with several em-dash interruptions, but every clause adds signal and there is no filler.

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?

With annotations declaring read-only behavior, an output schema present, and 100% parameter coverage, the description adds the remaining needed context: what the check sees, how to interpret nulls, and when to run it relative to ssh_audit_baseline. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The tool description adds useful context around domains and null results, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('the TLS certificate a domain serves'), and enumerates the concrete outputs: days left, SAN match, issuer, renewal configuration. This clearly differentiates it from sibling SSH tools like ssh_exec or ssh_audit_baseline.

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 explicitly says to 'Run it per domain, once ssh_audit_baseline has named the sites,' giving a clear prerequisite and invocation pattern. It does not enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is actionable and specific.

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