list_saml_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it never says this is a read-only query, nor that it requires a target FortiGate device_id, nor anything about permissions or behavior when the device has no SAML servers. The only behavioral hint is the implicit read-only nature of 'List'.

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 tightly written sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return fields in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 resource and returned fields are clear. However, it omits that a device_id is required to scope the call and gives no sense of behavior if the device is unreachable or unconfigured, leaving gaps an agent must fill from the schema alone.

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% and both parameters (device_id, vdom) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about scoping to a device or virtual domain beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('List') and resource ('SAML identity providers') and the parenthetical enumerates the returned fields (entity IDs, SSO/SLO URLs), so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It is distinguishable from sibling listers like list_ldap_servers or list_radius_servers by the SAML resource name, though no explicit sibling comparison is made.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the other authentication-server listers (LDAP, RADIUS, TACACS+, FSSO), nor any prerequisites. Only the implied usage of 'looking up SAML IdP configuration' can be inferred from the name and output fields.

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