list_virtual_ips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It makes the read-only nature clear via 'List'/'retrieves' and usefully enumerates what is returned (external/mapped IPs, port forwarding, interface assignments), but it says nothing about permissions, device reachability, or whether results are paginated or vdom-scoped by default beyond the parameter note.

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 statement is front-loaded, then parameters and returns are cleanly sectioned. There is mild redundancy between the opening sentence and the following sentence, but every line still carries usable information for an agent that has no output schema.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the return fields and the two parameters. The remaining gap is the lack of any routing guidance relative to sibling VIP/pool tools, which matters in such a dense tool catalog.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates them and adds only a small clarification that omitting vdom uses the device default; that is genuine added meaning, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all Virtual IPs configured on a FortiGate device') and even names the object semantics (port forwarding, NAT mappings). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like list_vip_groups or get_virtual_ip_detail, which an agent might reasonably 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?

Coverage of when to use this tool is only implied by the word 'List' versus detail-oriented siblings. There is no explicit statement such as 'use this to enumerate VIPs; use get_virtual_ip_detail for a single object's config' or any prerequisite/device-context guidance.

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