List IMAP Auth Profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the 'None (read-only)' line merely repeats structured data rather than adding context. Nothing is said about scoping to a domain, pagination, or result ordering.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and wastes no words. The only blemish is the redundant 'IMAP Auth Profile profiles' phrasing and a second line that duplicates the annotations.

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 list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, this is minimally adequate. With no output schema, a hint about what the listing returns or whether results are domain-scoped would have closed the remaining gap.

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% for the single required 'domain' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, matching, or scoping detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 clear verb+resource combination ('List IMAP Auth Profile profiles'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as fortimail.profiles.imap_auth.get or fortimail.profiles.smtp_auth.list, and the phrasing 'Profile profiles' is redundant.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the .get, .create, .update, or .delete siblings, nor any stated prerequisites beyond the required domain. The phrase 'via the engine' is too vague to route the agent.

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