get_ssl_ssh_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose error behavior via the 'status' and 'message' keys, which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions needed, whether it only reads from a locked/unlocked ADOM, or rate limits.

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 with the purpose sentence, then compact Args and Returns blocks with no filler. Well-structured for a small tool, though the Args block largely duplicates the schema titles.

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 two-parameter read tool with both params documented and an output schema present, the description covers what's needed to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is operational context (permissions, ADOM lock state), which is minor but non-zero.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does document both parameters ('adom: ADOM name', 'name: SSL/SSH profile name'). However, these restate the field titles without adding format, case-sensitivity, or lookup-order guidance, so compensation is minimal.

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 detailed information about an SSL/SSH inspection profile'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_ssl_ssh_profiles or get_* on other profile types, but the singular-noun naming makes the difference inferable.

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: the required 'name' argument suggests this fetches one existing profile by identifier, probably after list_ssl_ssh_profiles. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no mention of prerequisites such as the profile needing to exist.

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