list_ips_custom_signatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about read-only semantics, required device permissions, pagination or result size, or whether the call is scoped to a single VDOM — all relevant for a device-backed listing call.

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; the parenthetical API path adds useful orientation at no cost. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally it is clean.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate — the agent knows what is being listed and which device to target. It stops short of describing return contents or behaviour when a VDOM is omitted, which leaves meaningful inference to the caller.

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 'device_id' documented as the FortiGate device identifier and 'vdom' as Virtual Domain, so the schema already does the explanatory work. The description adds no semantics beyond that, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns no bonus.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a precise resource 'custom IPS signatures', reinforced by the API path '(ips/custom)'. No sibling in the tool list covers IPS signatures, so an agent can identify this tool's domain without ambiguity, though the scope (global vs per-VDOM, custom vs built-in) is only implied by the word 'custom'.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or related tools (e.g. list_security_profiles). The agent must infer that this is a read-only inventory call from the verb 'List' alone.

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