get_application_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it does disclose the result envelope (status success/error, full list config, message on failure), which is useful. It does not state read-only safety explicitly, permission requirements, or behavior when the named list is absent.

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 is front-loaded and the text is short, but the Args/Returns block restates parameter names and duplicates the return structure that an output schema already provides. The Returns section, in particular, does not fully earn its place.

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 tool this is close to sufficient, and the return-key breakdown is redundant given an output schema exists. Missing but relevant context includes not-found behavior and any ADOM/locking preconditions, which matters for a FortiManager-style getter.

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 0% (only bare titles), so the description must compensate; it partly does by clarifying 'name' as the application-control list name rather than a generic name. However, 'adom: ADOM name' is essentially tautological and no format or constraint details are given for either parameter.

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 ('get') and resource ('application-control list') and signals 'detailed information', which implicitly distinguishes it from list_application_lists. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the single-item vs collection distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'get detailed information' plus a required 'name' suggests fetching one specific list, contrasted with list_application_lists. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance (e.g., whether the ADOM must be locked or the list must already exist).

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