service_call

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

No annotations provided. The description only states it covers GET/POST, but does not disclose required permissions, error handling, rate limits, or the consequences of invalid paths. Minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP methods.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's scope. Could include a brief note on usage context, but overall is appropriately concise without superfluous text.

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, return values need not be described. However, the description omits mention of sibling specialized tools, which is a completeness gap for this generic tool. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 well-documented parameters (examples for service_path, defaults for method/body/vdom). The description does not add semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

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 that the tool calls any FortiOS Service API endpoint, covering all GET/POST on /api/v2/service/{service_path}. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are specific endpoints (e.g., antivirus_profile_create), making it clear this is a generic catch-all.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. the many specific sibling tools. Does not mention that dedicated tools should be preferred for standard operations, nor provides any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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