get_device_sslvpn_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the data source is the device DB, the object is a per-vdom singleton (so no list semantics apply), and the vdom defaults to root. It omits error behavior for an unknown device/vdom and any permission or ADOM-lock prerequisites, which is the only real gap for a read tool.

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?

Docstring layout is front-loaded and scannable, with the purpose in the first sentence and args/returns below. The aside about the FNDN schema's 'object' vs 'table' classification is mildly esoteric but does justify the absence of sibling CRUD tools.

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 stated return shape (device, vdom, settings object) is a bonus rather than a necessity. For a two-parameter read tool the description covers purpose, scope, defaults, and output; only failure modes and permission prerequisites are missing.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting both parameters ('device: Managed device name', 'vdom: VDOM to read (default "root")'). It does not add accepted value formats or naming examples for vdom beyond the default, so it falls short of fully replacing schema documentation.

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 the SSL-VPN (Agentless VPN) settings object from a device's device DB'), and the clause about being a per-vdom singleton with no list/create/delete siblings distinguishes it from get_device_sslvpn_web_portal and update_device_sslvpn_settings. An agent can identify the target resource without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the context that selects this tool: it is a per-vdom singleton, so reads are the only operation and no list/create/delete variants exist. It does not explicitly name update_device_sslvpn_settings as the mutation counterpart, so routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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