list_fortitokens

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about whether results are scoped to a device or VDOM, whether the list is paginated or truncated, what permissions are needed, or what 'status' values can appear. The ambiguous parenthetical does little to close that gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical is the only element whose value is unclear.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with a fully described schema, this covers the essentials: what is listed and which attributes are included. No output schema exists, so a brief note on return shape would help, but the gap is minor.

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 both device_id and vdom are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting information beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (list FortiTokens) and adds the scope of what is returned (status/assignment). The parenthetical '(monitor/user/fortitoken)' gestures at the data categories but is cryptic and not tied to any field. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings by resource name, though it never says so explicitly.

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 guidance on when to call this versus other tools, no mention that a device_id is required, no prerequisites or scope conditions. The agent must infer everything from the schema.

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