diff_adom_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that a job is started, polled to completion, and that the call is read-only with nothing written to the ADOM. It also reveals blocking characteristics via timeout (default 60, capped 300) and poll_interval (default 2, capped 30). It does not state auth/permission requirements or whether the diff reflects uncommitted changes.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by mechanism, read-only guarantee, and structured Args/Returns. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

Covers what the tool does, how it behaves (job + polling), the read-only safety profile, all parameters with caps, and even summarizes the return dict keys. Complete for an agent to invoke correctly without opening the schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does — every one of the four parameters is explained, including default values and hard caps for timeout and poll_interval, plus the cross-reference for revision. This adds substantial meaning beyond bare type/title fields.

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?

States a specific verb ('Diff') and resource ('a past ADOM DB revision against the CURRENT live ADOM'), and names the underlying mechanism (FortiManager cache-diff job, revision as source, live ADOM as destination). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_adom_revision, list_adom_revisions, diff_device_revision and diff_policy_package.

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?

Points the agent to list_adom_revisions to obtain a valid revision number, which is the key prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast against get_adom_revision or diff_device_revision, but the 'compare against current' framing makes the use case unambiguous.

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