list_switch_port_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does very little: it never explicitly states the operation is read-only, does not say whether stats are current vs. cumulative counters, gives no pagination or return-format hints, and says nothing about permissions or per-VDOM scoping behavior.

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 no filler; the resource and API endpoint are stated immediately. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing what 'statistics' comprises (rx/tx, errors, discards) and how results are scoped by device_id/vdom across multiple switches.

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 both device_id and vdom are already documented in the schema and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies; the parenthetical API path adds slight orientation but not parameter semantics.

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 a clearly scoped resource ('FortiSwitch port statistics'), with the underlying API path in parentheses. An agent can distinguish it from list_interface_counters or list_managed_switches because the description names switch-port stats explicitly, though it never states the contrast outright.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named even though nearby siblings (list_interface_counters, list_lldp_neighbors, get_interface_status) could plausibly overlap. The agent must infer conditions from the tool name alone.

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