fortigate_get_interfaces

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Get' without clarifying whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or what specific interface configuration fields are returned. Minimal transparency.

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 one concise sentence with no extraneous words. It earns its place by clearly identifying the tool's purpose despite its brevity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what 'interface configuration' includes and what the return format is. It does neither. The tool is simple, but the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent on expected outputs or edge cases.

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?

The schema already provides a description for the only parameter (device_id: 'Fortigate device ID'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantic value, 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?

The description 'Get interface configuration from Fortigate' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (interface configuration) on a specific platform (Fortigate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fortigate_get_policies and fortigate_get_routes by the resource type.

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 implies usage when Fortigate interface configuration is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mikrotik_get_interfaces or switch_show_interfaces. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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