get_fortianalyzer_settings

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb "Show" implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful, but the description says nothing about required permissions, whether the settings are returned raw or normalized, or what happens if FortiAnalyzer is unconfigured.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing could usefully be removed.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read of a settings object, the input schema is fully described, and no output schema exists to defer to. The description gives enough to invoke it correctly, though it could note that vdom is optional and defaults to the global scope.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (vdom and device_id), so the schema already documents them adequately. The description adds no extra semantics such as vdom scoping behavior or what device_id format is expected, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ("Show") and resource (FortiAnalyzer logging settings) and even cites the underlying API path (log.fortianalyzer/setting), making the target unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like get_log_settings or list_syslog_settings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_log_settings, list_syslog_settings, or monitor_get/log_get. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is a specific-read of one vendor's logging config rather than a general log settings query.

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