list_ca_certificates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing states scope of return, pagination, whether per-vdom certificates are included, or any permission requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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 zero waste, but it is arguably too terse given the three overlapping certificate tools in the sibling list.

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?

A simple read-only list tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, so little is strictly required. Still, with no annotations and no explanation of what is returned or how certificates are categorized, an agent lacks context to disambiguate it from sibling certificate tools.

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% with both parameters documented ('vdom' as Virtual Domain, 'device_id' as FortiGate device identifier), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no extra meaning, such as scoping by vdom or what device_id format is expected; baseline 3 applies.

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 trusted CA certificates installed on the device'), which is more precise than a bare 'list certificates'. However, it never names the sibling tools that overlap most (list_local_certificates, list_remote_certificates), so an agent must infer the distinction from the adjective 'trusted CA' rather than being told.

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 rather than the other two certificate-listing siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The implicit 'list' usage is all an agent gets.

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