vmware-nsx-security

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully enumerates the fields returned in the output, providing insight into the data structure. However, it does not explicitly confirm the read-only nature of the operation, mention rate limits, or describe error handling behaviors that would help an agent understand operational constraints.

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 appropriately sized with clear structural separation between the action statement, return value documentation, and parameter documentation. Each sentence contributes value without redundancy, though the Args section formatting is slightly informal.

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 tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description provides adequate completeness. It documents the parameter sufficiently to overcome the schema's 0% coverage, and while it describes return values, the existence of an output schema means this is supplementary rather than mandatory.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting the single 'target' parameter in the Args section, explaining it as an 'Optional NSX Manager target name from config.' This provides sufficient semantic meaning for the agent to understand the parameter's purpose despite 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 clearly states the tool 'List[s] all IDPS profiles configured in NSX' with a specific verb and resource. It also details the returned fields (id, display_name, severity, criteria, overridden signature count). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_idps_status.

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 like get_idps_status or other list operations. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditional usage notes provided.

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