list_interfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation and lists the kind of data returned, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, or explicitly confirm absence of side effects.

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 core action and organized into parameters and returns sections. It is appropriately sized, though the first two sentences partially repeat the same idea about listing all interfaces.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description does well to summarize return fields and parameter defaults. However, it omits routing guidance relative to sibling tools and does not cover operational details such as pagination or authentication, leaving gaps for an agent choosing among interface-related 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting that vdom is optional and defaults to the device's default virtual domain. The device_id explanation mostly duplicates the schema, but the vdom default behavior is a genuine addition.

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: listing all network interfaces on a FortiGate device, including physical ports, VLANs, and virtual interfaces. This is clear and specific, but it does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as get_interface_status or list_interface_counters.

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 returns but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like get_interface_status, list_interface_counters, or list_zones. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing cues for the agent.

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