get_device_wtp_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that radios are included, credential fields are stripped, and a not_found error is returned when the profile is absent. It could say more about whether this is strictly read-only or what other errors may occur, but the important behavioral traits are covered.

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 description is front-loaded with the main purpose, then uses a clean Args/Returns structure. It is slightly formulaic but every sentence adds useful information and there is 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?

The tool is a simple read operation, and the description covers purpose, all parameters, return shape, and the key not_found behavior. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to exhaustively enumerate return fields, and it supplies the important secrets-stripping note.

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 supply parameter meaning. It documents all three parameters, clarifying that device is a managed device name, profile is a FortiAP/WTP profile name, and vdom defaults to 'root'. That fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Get a FortiAP (WTP) profile') and adds scope ('from a device's device DB, radios included') that separates it from sibling tools like list_device_wtp_profiles and get_device_wtp. An agent can identify the operation 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?

The description implies this is the lookup-by-name operation for a device-local WTP profile, but it never explicitly states when to use it instead of list_device_wtp_profiles, get_device_wtp, or update_device_wtp_profile_radio. The scope is clear enough to infer usage, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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