list_prefix_lists

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare verb. It does not state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, whether the device must be reachable, or how results are shaped/paginated.

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 short sentence with zero waste and the core verb front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than well-earned brevity.

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 tool with a fully documented schema the description could get by with little, but with no annotations and no output schema, the agent gets no information about read-only safety, prerequisites, or result shape, leaving it under-contextualized relative to the 100+ sibling 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?

Both parameters (device_id, vdom) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no interpretation of what vdom=null means (global vs. default vdom) or how device_id maps to the list_discover flow.

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?

The verb 'List' and resource 'router prefix lists' are stated, so the basic operation is identifiable. However, the description never clarifies what a prefix list is in this context (route-map matching objects on a FortiGate) or what scope it returns, and it does nothing to distinguish it from the many other list_* read tools.

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 call this versus alternatives such as get_routing_table, list_route_maps, or the generic cmdb_list, and no mention that a specific device must already be registered (device_id required) or that vdom scoping may change results.

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