get_auth_profiles

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already declare the safety profile, so the description does not need to re-establish that. It adds useful operational detail: the exact config path and the profile types included, which provides context 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the operation, protocol coverage, and config source are all stated efficiently. The read-only marker is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only getter with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. The listing of included protocols partially conveys return content, though a bit more detail about the response structure would make it fully complete.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the input schema, including when it is required versus optional. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Retrieves') with a clear resource ('authentication profiles') and names the contained protocols (RADIUS, LDAP, TACACS+). This distinguishes it from the many other get_* sibling tools without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. The config path gives context about where the data comes from, but not why an agent should select this tool over other getters.

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