panorama_get_shared_security_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the [READ-ONLY] prefix is somewhat redundant. The description does add the exact config path, which is useful, but it omits other behavioral details such as auth requirements, response format, or behavior when the optional firewall parameter is omitted.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The read-only marker and config path are front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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 low-complexity, read-only retrieval tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It could be slightly stronger by noting what the returned profile list contains or when the firewall parameter is required, but no critical invocation details are 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the firewall parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, 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'), a clear resource ('shared security profiles'), and an explicit scope ('defined at Panorama level') with a config path. This distinguishes it from local firewall security profile tools and similar Panorama shared-object tools.

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 Panorama-level scope implies when the tool is relevant, but the description does not explicitly compare it to alternatives such as get_security_profiles or other Panorama shared-object tools. It provides clear context without exclusions or selection criteria.

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