list_shaping_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'List'. It doesn't disclose that the call is device-scoped (device_id required), how vdom affects the result, whether results are paginated, or what fields policies contain. This is inadequate disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

It's a single short sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, that brevity comes at the cost of substance—there is nothing front-loaded beyond the bare purpose, so conciseness here is under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the definition is too thin. It omits what a 'traffic shaping policy' contains, how vdom scopes results, and what the caller should expect back, leaving the agent to guess at the tool's actual output surface.

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 both device_id and vdom are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters (e.g., whether vdom defaults to the device's management VDOM or filters results), so the baseline of 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?

The description states a verb and resource ('list traffic shaping policies'), which is clear enough, but it essentially restates the tool name. It does nothing to distinguish this from nearby siblings such as list_traffic_shapers, list_firewall_policies, or list_policy_routes, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that a device must first be added via add_device), and no indication of how it relates to the shaping-related siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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