faz_list_log_forwarders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'global' scope, which is useful context, but it does not describe any additional behavioral traits or return format expectations. With annotations present, this is an acceptable baseline.

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 sentence with no redundancy, directly stating the action and target. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list operation and earns its place without wasted words.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further detail.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema is empty (100% coverage by default). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4 since there is no parameter information to convey. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'global FortiAnalyzer log-forwarding configurations', which is clear and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like faz_list_devices or faz_list_alerts. The scope 'global' adds precision beyond just the tool name.

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 implies usage by clearly naming what is listed, and the zero-parameter scope makes usage straightforward. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, though this is a simple, self-contained operation. Context is clear with no exclusions.

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