get_device_ipsec_phase1_interface

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that credential fields are stripped (referencing _PHASE1_SECRET_FIELDS) and that a not_found error is a possible outcome. It does not cover permissions or whether a stale device DB read can occur, but the disclosure of redaction and failure mode is well beyond a bare read description.

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 one-line purpose, followed by compact Args/Returns blocks. Every line carries information; the '_PHASE1_SECRET_FIELDS' internal identifier is mildly implementation-leaking but signals the redaction is systematic.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns section is somewhat redundant, but it usefully adds the not_found failure case and the credential-stripping guarantee that a schema alone would not convey. Combined with full parameter documentation, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: device is 'Managed device name', name is the 'phase1-interface (remote gateway) name', and vdom is the VDOM it lives in with default 'root'. All three parameters get meaning, though none get format examples or constraints.

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: 'Get one IPsec phase1-interface (remote gateway) from a device's device DB', where 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling list_device_ipsec_phase1_interfaces. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to infer it from the name pattern.

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: 'one' signals single-object retrieval versus the list sibling, and the required device+name pair signals lookup by identity. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of a create/update/delete counterpart, and no prerequisites such as whether the device must be managed or locked.

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