ssl_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the call "cannot be paged or filtered" and returns specific fields. The [READ] prefix reinforces the non-mutating nature.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the return fields, the key limitation, and the sibling alternative. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, states the returned fields, notes the pagination/filtering limitation, and directs the agent to the appropriate alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description adds that the call is unfilterable, which implicitly confirms that no filtering parameters exist. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no deductions are warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List SSL/TLS certificates stored on the AVI Controller." It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling ssl_expiry_check by stating that this one is for inventory or exact name lookup while the sibling is for certificates expiring soon.

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 when to use this tool: "Use for inventory or a certificate's exact name — use ssl_expiry_check instead for only the ones expiring soon." This provides both a positive use case and an explicit alternative, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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