get_profile_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it signals a read operation ('Get') and mentions 'message on failure', which is useful. However, it does not state whether ADOM must exist, what happens for an unknown group name, or any permission/rate-limit behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the middle sentence earns its place by explaining what the tool resolves. The Args block largely restates schema field names, and the Returns block overlaps the existing output schema, adding low-value text.

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 two-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers purpose and rough return shape, so an agent can attempt a call. It remains thin on ADOM context and error conditions, which matters for a domain-specific FortiManager tool with no annotations.

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, but it only supplies bare labels: 'adom: ADOM name' and 'name: Profile group name'. The latter clarifies the entity slightly, but neither parameter gets format, constraints, or examples.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a firewall security profile group', and adds that it shows which profiles a policy using ``profile-group`` really applies. This is clear enough to distinguish it from individual profile getters in spirit, though 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 implied by 'Shows which profiles a policy using ``profile-group`` really applies', which tells the agent this is for resolving a profile group to its member profiles. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.

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