list_security_profiles

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the return shape (names, comments, per-type entry/block counts), which signals this is a lightweight summary call rather than a full dump. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics, required admin permissions, pagination, or behavior when the type has zero profiles.

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 one-line purpose, then parameters and returns in labeled blocks. The parameter list is somewhat redundant against a 100%-covered schema, but overall it is compact and scannable.

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 present, the description compensates by outlining the return payload, and all three parameters are covered. The remaining gap is situational: it never tells the agent when to follow up with get_security_profile_detail or how to handle multiple profile types simultaneously.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters; the description's parameter block largely restates them. It does add the enumeration of valid profile_type values, but that is already present as a schema enum, and no semantics are added for vdom (e.g., default/global VDOM behavior) or device_id resolution.

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+resource ('List security (UTM) profiles') with an explicit scope constraint ('of one type') and a note that each result carries a summary. This implicitly separates it from get_security_profile_detail, which returns full detail for a single profile, though the sibling is never named.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The only inference available is that 'of one type' means profile_type is mandatory, which the schema already enforces via the required list.

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