list_ipsec_phase2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implicitly signals a read-only enumeration by naming returned fields, but does not state that it is non-mutating, whether results can be empty, or anything about permissions for the target device.

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 naming the resource and its key fields. Efficient, though it could carry one more clause on sibling differentiation without becoming bloated.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by listing returned fields. But it leaves the phase-1 vs phase-2 vs tunnels distinction and read-only nature unaddressed, which an agent needs to call it confidently.

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 device_id and vdom documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 IPsec phase-2 selectors') and enumerates the returned fields (phase-1 name, local/remote subnets, proposals, auto-negotiate). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling list_ipsec_phase1 or list_ipsec_tunnels, leaving the agent to infer why phase-2 selectors differ.

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 listing intent implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over list_ipsec_phase1 or list_ipsec_tunnels, nor any mention of prerequisites like needing a device_id.

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