health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the checks performed and the kinds of values returned, including device count, service availability, performance metrics, and error conditions. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention permissions or any side effects, leaving some behavioral context implicit.

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 main action and follows with a useful bullet list of return contents. There is minor redundancy between the first two sentences, but the structure is efficient and the Returns section earns its place by compensating for the absence of an output 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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is checked and enumerates what is returned. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit safety/read-only language and the absence of guidance about when this comprehensive check should be preferred over the many sibling status 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document beyond the schema. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies, and the description adds no confusing parameter information.

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: perform a comprehensive health check of the FortiGate MCP server. It also clarifies the scope by naming device connectivity, service availability, and system resources, which makes the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this aggregate health check from sibling tools such as get_device_status, get_system_resources, or get_performance_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 description explains what the tool checks but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. In a sibling list full of overlapping health/status tools, an agent must infer whether health_check is an umbrella check or a replacement for individual status tools.

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