list_ipsec_tunnels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does valuable work by describing the returned state set (UP/PARTIAL/DOWN/dialup) and the dial-up edge case where clients are reported instead of a gateway, but it omits permissions requirements, pagination, or volume/rate considerations for a device-scoped 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?

Front-loaded with the core statement and the dial-up caveat, then cleanly separated Parameters/Returns blocks. The parameter block duplicates the schema and is the only real wasted space.

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 Returns section usefully compensates by describing the per-tunnel block and state enumeration. Missing only a note on how this relates to the IPsec config siblings and any scoping/cost caveats.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's parameter block essentially restates the schema text ('Identifier of the FortiGate device', 'Virtual Domain name (optional)') without adding format, default, or behavior detail. 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 IPsec VPN tunnels') and enumerates the fields returned (status, gateway, phase-2 selectors, traffic counters). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the config-oriented siblings list_ipsec_phase1/list_ipsec_phase2 by emphasizing runtime status, but never names those siblings 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_ipsec_phase1, list_ipsec_phase2, or execute_ipsec_tunnel_action. The mention of dial-up tunnel behavior is a data-shape note, not a usage rule.

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