get_interface_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a live retrieval of link state, IP configuration, and related details, but it omits error behavior, permission requirements, and what happens when the interface or VDOM is invalid.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into Parameters and Returns sections. The Returns section is useful because no output schema exists, though the parameter list largely duplicates the input schema.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description provides a useful list of return fields and distinguishes the single-interface scope. It is only missing explicit error behavior and guidance on when to prefer alternative status or listing tools.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the parameter names with brief labels and notes that vdom is optional and uses the device default, but it adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Get the current status of a specific network interface') and specifies the scope as a single named interface on a FortiGate device. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_interfaces, which would return multiple interfaces.

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 saying it retrieves live status for one named interface, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of list_interfaces or list_interface_counters. No alternatives are named and no prerequisites are stated.

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