get_log_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only 'show' operation and summarizes the return format, but it does not mention permissions, device availability requirements, or other operational constraints.

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 and efficiently structured, first stating the aggregate purpose and then the parameters and return shape. The parameter section largely repeats the schema, which is slightly redundant, but the text remains tight.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description provides a useful return summary: one line per log destination with status, server and key options. Combined with fully documented parameters, this is enough for an agent to call the tool, though operational caveats are omitted.

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 both parameters. The description repeats device_id and vdom meanings without adding format details, examples, or behavior beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: showing where the device sends logs across memory, disk, syslog, FortiAnalyzer and FortiCloud in one view. The 'one view' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like list_syslog_settings and get_fortianalyzer_settings, but it does not explicitly name them.

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 consolidated-view framing implies when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of the sibling-specific syslog or FortiAnalyzer tools. It also gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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