get_security_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with '[READ-ONLY]'. It adds the config path, which gives useful context about where data is read from, but does not mention return format, pagination, or authentication needs. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not extensive.

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 sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and the resource, then includes the config path. '[READ-ONLY]' slightly duplicates the annotation, but the overall length is compact and every part adds 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essentials: what is retrieved, where from, and the optional firewall parameter. It does not describe the return structure, but that is not required here, and the tool is simple enough that this description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, and the only parameter 'firewall' is fully documented in the schema, including its source (firewalls.json) and optionality. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('security profiles'), enumerating concrete profile types (antivirus, vulnerability, spyware, URL filtering). It also provides a config path that distinguishes it from siblings like get_security_profile_groups and panorama_get_shared_security_profiles, making the tool's scope 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 implies usage context through the config path (/config/.../vsys/entry/profiles), indicating it targets firewall-local profiles rather than Panorama shared ones. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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