list_idps_profiles

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned and the optional target parameter, which is not in the annotations. No contradictions.

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, with the read-purpose indicated upfront. It uses a clear structure with an action indicator, purpose, return fields, and parameter explanation. No superfluous content.

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 the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks notes on pagination, ordering, or potential errors, which are minor for a simple list but would improve completeness.

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 input schema has one optional 'target' parameter with no description. The tool description supplements by stating it is 'Optional NSX Manager target name from config,' providing context beyond the bare schema title.

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]' and clearly states 'List all IDPS profiles configured in NSX.' It enumerates the returned fields (id, display_name, severity, criteria, overridden signatures), making the tool's specific function unambiguous. It is distinct from siblings like get_idps_status or list_dfw_policies.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling might be more appropriate for specific use cases.

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