fortigate_vpn_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation ('Get ... status') but does not describe return format, whether multiple tunnels are returned, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, making it highly concise.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the status output contains, how to interpret the response, or any caveats. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context to make the tool fully usable.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter ('Fortigate device ID'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 gets IPSec VPN tunnel status from Fortigate devices. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IPSec VPN tunnel status'), and the mention of 'Fortigate' distinguishes it from the generic sibling tool 'vpn_status'.

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 by naming the resource and device (IPSec VPN tunnel status from Fortigate), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vpn_status' or other fortigate_* tools. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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