monitor_switch_controller_managed_switch

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get status') but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or return format. The brief text is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

Single sentence of 8 words, no redundancy. Every word earns its place, providing essential information without cluttering.

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?

The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose for a simple read operation. With an output schema present, return values are documented elsewhere. However, brief additional context about scope (e.g., 'all switches across specified VDOM') would enhance 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% with a clear description for 'vdom'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, thus baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('status of all FortiSwitch managed switches'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'monitor_switch_controller_port_stats' which focuses on port-level stats.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. The name and description imply usage for retrieving switch status, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned among many sibling monitor tools.

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