get_system_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns status fields, which strongly implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, permissions required, or failure behavior. The field list adds some transparency, but not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 that lists both the tool's scope and its key output fields. It contains no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and general output, though it could benefit from explicit usage guidance.

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 schema describes the only parameter (device) fully with 100% coverage, including its optionality and default behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles the documentation burden.

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 a specific verb ('get') and resource ('system status'), and enumerates the exact data returned (hostname, model, FortiOS version, serial, HA mode, CPU/memory/session usage). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target interfaces, routing, or VPN 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 phrase 'General FortiGate status' implies this is the go-to for overall device health, while sibling tools cover specific subsystems. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so guidance remains only implicit.

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