list_waf_profiles

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the load and does reasonably well: it discloses the ADOM default resolution chain (env var DEFAULT_ADOM, then 'root'), the partial-match nature of filtering, and the exact return shape including the error key. It omits permission requirements and whether results are paginated, but for a read-only list operation the residual risk is low.

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 sentence is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns blocks are compact and skimmable with zero filler prose. Every line conveys a distinct fact about invocation or output.

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-optional-parameter read tool, the description covers both inputs and the return contract. Since an output schema already exists, the Returns block is somewhat redundant, and there is no explicit note on large result sets or ordering, leaving a small gap.

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 all parameter meaning and it does: adom is documented with its default fallback chain, and name_filter is documented as a partial match. This is meaningfully beyond the bare 'Adom'/'Name Filter' titles in the schema, though it gives no format examples or case-sensitivity detail.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List WAF (Web Application Firewall) profiles in an ADOM') and even expands the acronym, so it is unmistakable against siblings like get_waf_profile, create_waf_profile, or delete_waf_profile. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 verb and by the presence of a name_filter, but there is no statement about when to use this versus get_waf_profile (single fetch) or when to skip the ADOM argument. An agent can infer the list-vs-get distinction from naming conventions alone, which is the definition of minimum-viable guidance.

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