faz_get_system_performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'current' aspect (snapshot rather than historical), which is useful context but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or prerequisites.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Every part contributes to explaining the tool's function.

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 simplicity of the tool (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the necessary context. Return values are presumably documented in the output schema, so no further detail is required.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter-specific details since there is nothing to clarify.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'FortiAnalyzer CPU, memory, and disk performance metrics', distinguishing it from sibling tools like faz_get_system_status. The scope (current metrics) is explicit.

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 clear context that this tool retrieves current performance metrics, making its intended use obvious. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but no such guidance is necessary for such a straightforward read-only getter.

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