list_security_profiles

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that results include the policies consuming each profile and the FortiGuard licensing state, including fallback behavior when unlicensed. It stops short of describing pagination, default scope beyond vdom, or output format, but adds genuine context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and result contents, followed by a routing instruction. Dense but every clause earns its place; the long parenthetical kind list is the only slight bloat.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is responsible for explaining returns and does so (profiles, consuming policies, license status). With vdom default noted in the schema and the modification path named, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though cross-references to related profile-list tools are 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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the 'kind' parameter by enumerating all twelve accepted values (ips, antivirus, webfilter, dnsfilter, application, emailfilter, dlp, file-filter, waf, videofilter, ssh-filter, virtual-patch), which the schema only hints at with 'e.g. ips'.

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 ("Security profiles by kind") and enumerates the kinds covered, so an agent immediately knows this is the listing tool for security profiles. It also states what the result includes (using firewall policies, FortiGuard license state), though it does not explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with.

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?

It gives a clear read-vs-change fork: use this tool to list/inspect, and route to get_config / set_config to read or change settings. That is actionable routing, but it does not state when to prefer this over e.g. describe_config or list_ssl_ssh_profiles.

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