list_service_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the call is a full enumeration ("all") and lists the category of returned fields, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, behavior when the device is unreachable, or required permissions.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Parameters/Returns blocks are scannable. Some space is spent restating schema-derived parameter descriptions, but the structure is efficient overall.

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 read-only single-resource list with no output schema, the description covers scope, parameters, and the shape of the response, which covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Minor gaps remain around pagination and vdom enumeration, which a sibling tool (discover_vdoms) implies the agent may need.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates both parameters but adds one genuinely new detail: vdom is optional and falls back to the device default, which goes slightly beyond the schema's bare "Virtual Domain" text.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ("List all service objects configured on a FortiGate device") and the second sentence narrows it to TCP/UDP port and protocol definitions. An agent can distinguish it from list_service_groups or list_address_objects by name alone, but the description never explicitly states that differentiation.

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 prefer this tool over siblings such as list_service_groups, cmdb_list, or the create/update/delete service object tools. It also omits any prerequisite context, such as needing a valid registered device_id or how vdom selection changes scope.

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