list_fobs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'GET /v1/fobs via Fabric proxy', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, required permissions, pagination, or result behavior. This is partial transparency but lacks depth.

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 concise and front-loaded: a clear functional statement followed by the parameter explanation. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with separate sentences for clarity.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers the endpoint and parameter. However, it lacks usage context (when to call it), pagination details, and any note about how it relates to get_fob/update_fob. The absence of use-case guidance leaves the agent slightly under-informed.

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 compensate. It explains that 'host' can be a console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format), providing meaningful semantics for the only parameter. This is sufficient for a simple parameter, though a concrete example would improve clarity.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('fobs'), and a scope ('Protect console'), and even gives the HTTP endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fob and update_fob.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only implies a list operation without explaining the intended context or how it differs from related fob tools.

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