fortigate_system_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it is a 'get' operation, which implies non-destructive read behavior, and lists CPU and memory as examples. However, it does not describe the return format, any potential permissions required, or additional resources included in 'etc.', so transparency is limited.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the primary purpose and examples, 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?

Given the simple one-parameter structure and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks detail on the exact metrics returned or any units. It is not fully complete for an agent to anticipate the response shape, though it is adequate for a basic status query.

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 100% coverage for the only parameter 'device_id' with the description 'Fortigate device ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3 without enhancing understanding.

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 system resource usage from Fortigate (CPU, memory, etc.)' uses a specific verb 'get' and a clear resource 'system resource usage', with examples. This distinguishes it from sibling Fortigate tools that focus on policies, routes, interfaces, VPN, or sessions, as none of those cover system resource usage.

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 system resource utilization is needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. There is no exclusion or comparison with similar status tools, leaving the context of selection to the agent's interpretation.

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