ping_from_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the origin of the diagnostic (the device itself) and what comes back ('packets sent/received and round-trip statistics'), but is silent on whether the call blocks for the ping duration, how many packets are sent, or what privileges/vdom scoping are 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and context, then a compact parameter and return listing. The parameter list partially duplicates the schema, but the overall length is small and every line is scannable.

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 4-parameter diagnostic with no annotations, the description covers purpose, origin of execution, parameters, and even a Returns summary despite no output schema. The remaining gap is operational behavior (blocking/timeout, packet count, permissions), which keeps it below complete.

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 the four parameters are already documented. The description's parameter list restates the schema almost verbatim ('IPv4 address or hostname to ping', 'Source interface') and adds no format hints, defaults, or interaction notes (e.g. how source_interface and vdom combine).

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Ping a host from the FortiGate itself') and even cites the backing CLI path (monitor/network/diag-icmp-ping), which unambiguously separates it from generic siblings like execute_monitor_action or test_device_connection. The use case ('reachability from the firewall's own perspective') further pins the scope.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use context, including a concrete scenario ('e.g. through a VPN tunnel'). It does not address when not to use it or name an alternative sibling (e.g. test_device_connection, execute_monitor_action) for source-of-ping selection, so it falls short of an explicit routing rule.

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