list_ssl_vpn_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'List active' implies a read-only operation and the Returns section hints at output shape ('one line per session'). However, it does not define what 'active' means (currently connected vs. all configured), whether vdom scoping changes results, or any error/auth behavior, leaving real gaps.

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 purpose, then clearly sectioned into Parameters and Returns, with zero filler. Slightly terse on the Returns side, but every sentence is doing work.

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 read-only list tool this covers the essentials: purpose, both parameters, and an output sketch. It falls short given the absence of annotations and output schema, since it never explains what 'active' entails, whether vdom filters results, or how empty/error results appear.

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 parameter semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates device_id and vdom with almost no added meaning beyond confirming vdom is optional, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List active SSL-VPN sessions') and enumerates the fields returned (user, source host, login time, duration). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_firewall_auth_sessions or list_active_sessions, so the agent must infer that SSL-VPN is the narrower scope.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (device reachability, permissions), and no exclusion of related tools. The only guidance is an implicit 'active' scope, which an agent could easily confuse with list_active_sessions.

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