get_device_ipsec_phase2_interface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('dict with device, vdom and the stored object') and the failure mode ('not_found error'), which is genuinely useful, but it never states that this is a read-only operation or whether any locking/permission context applies.

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 one-line purpose followed by tight Args and Returns blocks; every line adds information and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 single-object fetch with an output schema present, the definition covers inputs and the error case adequately. Missing only minor details such as whether the name lookup is vdom-scoped or global, but the overall picture is sufficient to call it 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: all three params (device, name, vdom) are explained, including the default for vdom. The explanations are terse ('Managed device name') without format examples, which keeps it below a 5.

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 ('Get one IPsec phase2-interface (tunnel/selector) from a device's device DB') and the parenthetical clarifies the domain concept. The 'one' quantifier implicitly separates it from the sibling list_device_ipsec_phase2_interfaces, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 by the singular-object framing; nothing states when to use this versus the list, create, update, or delete phase2-interface siblings. The Args section gives retrieval inputs but no contextual conditions or prerequisites (e.g., device must be managed/adopted).

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