get_ssl_vpn_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' signals a read-only retrieval and the parenthetical enumerates what comes back, but nothing is said about permission requirements, whether the vdom parameter scopes results, or error behavior for an unknown device_id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the returned-field list in parentheses; nothing redundant and no filler. The most useful information (what is retrieved) comes first.

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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the parenthetical field list effectively stands in for return-value documentation, which makes it callable without follow-up questions. The remaining gap is vdom scoping semantics, which matters on FortiGate but is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema ('FortiGate device identifier', 'Virtual Domain'), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about how vdom affects the returned settings or that device_id is mandatory.

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 ('Show') and a concrete resource ('SSL-VPN settings'), then enumerates the returned fields (status, port, source interfaces, portal mapping, tunnel IP pools). This distinguishes it reasonably from list_ssl_vpn_portals and list_ssl_vpn_sessions, though it does not name those siblings explicitly, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for global SSL-VPN configuration on a device. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to list_ssl_vpn_portals/list_ssl_vpn_sessions for portal or session data, leaving the choice to inference.

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