list_sdwan_health_checks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Show' implies a read-only monitoring operation and the description lists returned metrics, but it does not disclose permission needs, device/vdom scoping behavior, or whether the device must be online.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the resource, scope, and key output metrics efficiently.

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 read-only monitoring tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough about the returned metrics to call it correctly. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning usage context or device scoping.

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. The description adds only 'per member,' which does not materially clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: showing SD-WAN health-check results per member, with the measured metrics. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_sdwan_config and list_sdwan_members by focusing on health-check results, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as requiring a reachable FortiGate, and no comparison to sibling tools like list_sdwan_members or get_sdwan_config. The purpose implies usage, but the description provides no selection guidance.

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