get_security_profile_detail

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 meaningful details: application-control entries are in evaluation order with actions/categories/signatures, and web-filter categories are grouped by action. 'Show' implies a read operation, though permission and error behavior are not addressed.

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 the main purpose and is structured into behavior, parameters, and returns. The parameter list largely duplicates the schema, but the overall text remains compact and readable.

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 detail tool with no output schema and no annotations, the return description is minimal: 'Profile settings and entries.' It explains special output formatting only for application and web filter profiles, leaving return behavior for antivirus, ips, dnsfilter, and ssl-ssh profiles poorly specified.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description repeats the parameter list and enum options but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: show one security profile in depth. The phrase 'one ... in depth' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_security_profiles, though it does not name that alternative explicitly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_security_profiles or other profile-related tools. It also does not state prerequisites such as obtaining a profile name first, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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