list_idps_profiles

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses detailed pagination behavior: it explains the envelope fields ('returned'/'limit'/'total'/'truncated'/'hint') and warns not to treat a page as complete. This is valuable context not available in annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear read marker, return-envelope explanation, pagination warning, cross-reference, and Args list. Every sentence adds functional value without redundant fluff.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return envelope and its fields, pagination semantics, and how to use the results. It also mentions a related tool for complementary data, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has zero descriptions, but the description's 'Args' section explains each parameter: target (optional NSX Manager target), name_filter (substring/glob match), limit (default 50), and offset (pagination). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with '[READ] List IDPS profiles configured in NSX', which clearly states the verb (List), resource (IDPS profiles), and scope (in NSX). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_idps_status and list_dfw_policies by naming the specific resource and read-only operation.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and how to handle pagination: 'never read a full page as complete, narrow with name_filter or page with offset.' It also points to an alternative, get_idps_status, for signature-bundle version and IDS settings, providing clear directional guidance.

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