list_ssl_vpn_portals

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, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or whether an unknown device_id errors versus returns empty. The parenthetical feature list describes the data, not the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical enumeration is slightly redundant given it describes returned fields rather than the tool's action, but it is not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description identifies the resource but leaves the agent guessing about result shape, vdom default behavior, and how it relates to get_ssl_vpn_settings. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and both parameters (device_id, vdom) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about vdom scoping or device_id format 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+resource ('List SSL-VPN portals') and enumerates the notable sub-features (tunnel mode, split tunneling, IP pools, web mode) that the returned portals carry. It is clearly distinguishable from list_ip_pools or get_ssl_vpn_settings, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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 closely related siblings (get_ssl_vpn_settings, list_ssl_vpn_sessions), and no mention of prerequisites such as the device needing to be reachable or how vdom scoping affects results. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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