list_arm_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the Fabric proxy transport path, the exact endpoint, and the v7.1.87 Integration API requirement. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving some burden unmet.

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 description is three short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the purpose and endpoint, then clarifies the host parameter and availability requirement with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the endpoint, target console, host identifier formats, and API availability constraint. It is complete for basic invocation, though it could optionally mention when to use get_arm_profile for a single profile.

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?

The schema only defines host as a string, but the description adds meaning by specifying accepted forms: 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)'. This materially helps an agent populate the parameter correctly despite the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states the specific operation 'List arm profiles' on a Protect console and gives the exact endpoint 'GET /v1/arm-profiles via Fabric proxy'. This clearly identifies the action and resource, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_arm_profile or other arm-profile siblings, so differentiation is mostly implicit.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_arm_profile, create_arm_profile, or update_arm_profile. The availability prerequisite is useful but is not a usage guideline. The intended use is only implied by the word 'List'.

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