get_device_sslvpn_web_portal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: bookmark credentials are stripped from the portal object (referencing _PORTAL_SECRET_FIELDS) and a not_found error is returned when absent. It omits whether read permission on the device/ADOM is required, which is the main remaining gap.

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-sentence purpose followed by compact Args and Returns blocks; every line adds information an agent needs, with no filler.

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?

A three-parameter getter with an output schema and no annotations is well covered: purpose, parameter meanings, return shape, and the not_found failure mode are all stated. Only prerequisite/permission context and pointer to the update sibling 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 Args block documents all three parameters beyond their names: device is a managed device name, name is the web portal name, and vdom is the VDOM it lives in with a 'root' default matching the schema. It does not state name-matching semantics (exact vs. case sensitivity), a minor residual gap.

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 an SSL-VPN web portal') and scopes it to a device's device DB, which distinguishes it from the sibling update_device_sslvpn_web_portal and from get_device_sslvpn_settings. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation requires inference from the pair name/verb.

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 implied by the read verb and the required device/name pair, and the 'device DB' scoping hints at which store the lookup targets. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to related tools such as the update variant or list tools for enumeration.

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