monitor_fortiview_top_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a 'Get' operation, likely read-only, but does not confirm safety, required permissions, or that it aggregates data from FortiView. The description is too minimal to properly disclose behavioral traits.

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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.

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 simple parameters and an existing output schema, the description lacks completeness. It mentions 'by bandwidth or session count' but the input schema has no parameter to select the metric, causing ambiguity about how the ordering is determined. The description does not fully clarify the tool's behavior.

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 has 2 parameters with complete descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('FortiView top applications'), and specifies the two sorting criteria (bandwidth or session count). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like monitor_fortiview_top_destinations and monitor_fortiview_top_sources, which focus on different entities.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does, leaving the context to the naming convention. Sibling tool names imply differences, but the description lacks direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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