Get Domain Settings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Side effects: None (read-only)' merely restates the annotation, and 'Returns: JSON' is too generic to add real behavioral context.

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 labeled Purpose/Inputs/Returns/Side effects format is front-loaded and compact with no wasted prose. It is efficient, though the rigid template means some labels carry little information.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, input, return type, and safety. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing given the tool's low complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'domain name (mkey)' in the schema; the description repeats the same phrase without adding format, validation, or lookup semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource: 'Load configuration for one domain.' This distinguishes it from the create/update/delete siblings, but it does not differentiate from the closely related fortimail.domains.info.get, leaving ambiguity about which getter to choose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With many sibling getters (domains.list, domains.info.get) available, the description offers nothing to help an agent decide when this tool is the right call.

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