monitor_endpoint_summary

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get', implying a read operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. While the action is safe, the description fails to add context beyond the verb.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose, with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function.

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 only one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is adequate for a simple summary tool. However, it lacks information about what statistics are included, which could be addressed to 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (the vdom parameter has a clear description in the schema). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, but given full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'endpoint control (FortiClient) summary statistics', clearly distinguishing this tool from other monitor_* siblings that target different subsystems (e.g., firewall, user, wifi).

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 that the tool is for retrieving summary statistics, but it does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like monitor_endpoint_record_list or other monitor tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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