log_disk_setting_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' adequately implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose details like response format, caching behavior, or required permissions. The transparency is adequate but minimal.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it lacks any structure (e.g., bullet points) that could improve scannability. Still, it is concise and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It provides examples of settings (log level, max log size) to give context. This is sufficient for a simple getter tool, though a more complete list of returned fields would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema description for 'vdom' is already comprehensive. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('disk logging settings'), with examples like log level and max log size. It easily distinguishes from sibling tools such as log_memory_setting_get (memory logging) and log_fortianalyzer_setting_get (FortiAnalyzer), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for retrieving disk logging settings, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., log_memory_setting_get). No conditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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