list_ssl_ssh_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that built-in profiles are read-only and shouldn't be edited, which is real behavioral context beyond the name. However, it says nothing about pagination, result volume, or required permissions for listing across VDOMs.

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, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the read-only caveat follows immediately, with no repetition of the name or title.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key editing caveat. It is nearly complete; only pagination/return-shape guidance is absent, which is minor at this complexity.

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 100%, so the vdom, filter and format parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the structured fields provide, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('List SSL/SSH inspection profiles') and adds the distinctive detail that the CA each profile re-signs with is included. It also implicitly differentiates from the sibling update_ssl_ssh_profile by pointing at what should be edited instead of these profiles.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent that the built-in no-inspection, certificate-inspection and deep-inspection profiles are read-only and that custom-deep-inspection or a copy should be edited instead. This is clear when-not guidance, though it doesn't name update_ssl_ssh_profile as the mutating alternative.

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