list_dhcp_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape per server (id, interface, status, IP range, gateway/netmask, DNS, lease time, reserved addresses), which signals a read-only enumeration. It does not mention permissions, pagination, or behavior for an invalid device_id/vdom, so gaps remain for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by clearly labeled Parameters and Returns blocks. The parameter list duplicates the schema slightly, but the Returns block earns its place given there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields including nested reservation fields, so an agent knows what it will get back. Parameter coverage is complete via the schema; only permission/error behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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's parameter list ('Identifier of the FortiGate device', 'Virtual Domain name (optional)') essentially restates the schema and adds no format hints or guidance on when vdom matters.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List DHCP servers configured on a FortiGate device, including their reservations.' An agent can tell it is a read of DHCP server configuration rather than leases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_dhcp_leases or create_dhcp_reservation, which an agent could plausibly confuse with 'reservations'.

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?

No when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives. The description never states how this differs from list_dhcp_leases (runtime leases) or when to pick it over create_dhcp_reservation/delete_dhcp_reservation, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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