list_firmware

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The word "Show" signals a read-only monitor operation, and the content scope is stated. It still does not disclose prerequisites, device reachability requirements, failure behavior, or return shape, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 a single well-formed sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical monitor endpoint is compact and useful. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 tool, and the schema fully documents both parameters. But there is no output schema, and the description gives only a broad indication of returned content without return structure or use prerequisites. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, with device_id documented as the FortiGate identifier and vdom documented as Virtual Domain. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it shows running firmware and available upgrade images. That makes its purpose distinct from status, license, and general monitor tools in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 firmware/upgrade wording implies this is used when checking current firmware or available upgrades. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as get_device_status or get_license_status.

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