list_interface_counters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read operation via 'Show' and names the returned data, but says nothing about whether device_id must be reachable, whether counters are point-in-time or averaged, error behavior for an offline device, or response shape — significant gaps for a monitor tool with no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the resource stated before the endpoint hint. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly what leaves the guidance gaps noted in other dimensions.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient — an agent knows what it returns. What is missing is the differentiation from get_interface_status/list_interfaces and any behavioral context, which matters because no annotations exist to backfill it.

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 coverage is 100% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema ('FortiGate device identifier', 'Virtual Domain'), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no semantics for vdom scoping or device_id formatting beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Show') plus resource ('per-interface traffic counters and link state') makes the output content unambiguous, and the '(monitor/system/interface)' hint anchors it to the FortiGate monitor endpoint. However, it does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as get_interface_status or list_interfaces, so the agent cannot tell which of the three to pick from the description alone.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With get_interface_status and list_interfaces in the sibling set covering overlapping territory, the absence of routing language forces the agent to infer the choice purely from tool names.

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