list_running_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the mention of CPU/memory discloses what data comes back. It does not say whether output is paginated, sorted, or limited, nor whether elevated access on the FortiGate is required.

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; the resource, the returned metrics, and the endpoint hint all fit in one line.

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-only list tool with a fully described schema, the description covers the essentials. It lacks any note on result volume, filtering, or ordering, and with no annotations and no output schema there is nothing else to fill that gap.

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 device_id and vdom are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning (e.g., that vdom scopes results to a virtual domain), 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 running processes') and adds the returned data ('CPU/memory usage'), which separates it from generic resource tools like get_system_resources and get_performance_status. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_system_resources or get_performance_status for aggregate views. The only context is an embedded endpoint path, which is usage-adjacent but not a selection criterion.

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