cmdb_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that this is a GET/read operation, that secret-looking fields are redacted, and that large responses are truncated. It does not discuss authentication/permissions or error behavior, so it falls short of fully comprehensive disclosure.

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 front-loaded with purpose and escape-hatch role, then caveats, parameters, and returns. The parameter list repeats schema names but earns its place by adding examples and syntax, and there is no filler.

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 7-parameter generic read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description explains read semantics, redaction/truncation, parameter narrowing, and that the return is raw JSON with results plus metadata. The exact response envelope remains lightly specified, which leaves a small gap without an output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning beyond the schema: path examples, filter syntax such as 'status==enable' and 'name=@vlan' with '&' joining, and a pipe-separated format_fields example. This materially improves parameter usage guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list every object of any FortiOS configuration table, including the underlying endpoint GET /api/v2/cmdb/{path}. It explicitly positions itself as the escape hatch for tables without a dedicated tool, which distinguishes it from cmdb_get and the many dedicated list_* siblings.

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 phrase 'escape hatch for tables that have no dedicated tool' gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with the alternative being the dedicated tool class. It also tells the agent to narrow large responses with filter_expr, count, or format_fields, and gives concrete path examples.

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