list_ipsec_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by explaining the lifetime relationship between phase-1 and phase-2 proposals and how dpd-interval * dpd-maximum-failures defines peer tolerance, which is genuine domain behavior an agent would not infer from 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the supporting notes are compact. The multi-line lifetime explanation is dense but each sentence adds real meaning, so it earns its place without 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and the description supplies valuable field semantics for the profile data. The main gap is the total silence on input parameters, but for a read-only filtered list that is a modest omission.

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% for the two input parameters (device, name_filter), so the description carries the full burden of clarifying them. Instead it describes returned fields (DH group, hash, lifetime, DPD) and never explains what device or name_filter do, leaving the actual inputs undocumented.

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 (Lists) and resource (IPsec profiles) and immediately clarifies it covers the phase-1 proposal. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the phase-2 sibling by referencing /ip ipsec proposal, so an agent can route between list_ipsec_profiles and list_ipsec_proposals without opening a schema.

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 phase-1 vs phase-2 distinction implies a use case, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus list_ipsec_proposals, list_ipsec_peers, or get_ipsec_active_peers. The notes are configuration constraints, not selection guidance, so usage is only implied.

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