fortigate_get_policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral characteristics. It only says 'via REST API' which is a minor technical detail. There is no mention of read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or any side effects—important for a networking device query tool.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It conveys the essential purpose without filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description and schema together cover the core functionality, but the lack of behavioral disclosures (e.g., whether it returns all policies by default, rate limits) leaves some gaps. It is adequate but not rich in context.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters: device_id and policy_id, including the optional semantics of policy_id ('lists all if omitted'). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('firewall policies from Fortigate'), and explicitly mentions it uses the REST API. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fortigate_get_routes or fortigate_get_interfaces.

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 usage is implied by the name and description—users should call this tool when they need firewall policy information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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