list_device_wtps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: credential fields are stripped from returned objects (references _WTP_SECRET_FIELDS). It implies read-only via 'List' and 'VDOM to read' but never states permissions or rate limits, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 purpose sentence followed by compact Args/Returns sections; every line carries information. The internal reference _WTP_SECRET_FIELDS is slightly implementation-specific jargon an agent cannot act on.

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 the description covers input meaning, default behavior, and the shape of the result, so an agent could call it correctly. The Returns block partly duplicates the existing output schema, but nothing essential is missing; only auth/permission context is absent.

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 and largely does: device is explained as the wireless controller / FortiGate, and vdom is 'VDOM to read' with its default 'root'. It adds meaning beyond the bare 'Vdom' title, though it gives no example values or note on whether vdom affects scoping of results.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource pair ('List managed FortiAPs registered in a device's device DB') that is unambiguous and distinct from the singular get_device_wtp sibling. It never explicitly names or contrasts with siblings, relying on the list/get convention to differentiate.

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 reader infers you call this to enumerate WTPs for one device. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_device_wtp for a single AP or list_device_wtp_profiles for profiles.

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