list_ldap_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavior: passwords are redacted, so an agent knows it cannot retrieve bind credentials. It does not confirm read-only semantics, whether results span all VDOMs, or any permission requirements.

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 sentence with the resource stated first and returned fields tucked into a parenthetical; every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields plus the redaction note covers the essential return-shape question. Only VDOM scoping behavior is left implicit.

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 ('FortiGate device identifier') and vdom ('Virtual Domain') both documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 LDAP servers') and enumerates the fields returned (server, port, DN, bind type, secure mode), which distinguishes it from sibling auth-server listings such as list_radius_servers, list_tacacs_servers, and list_saml_servers by name alone.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus the other authentication-server list tools, nor any stated prerequisites (a FortiGate device_id is required). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the read-only 'List' framing.

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