get_device_realtime_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool queries the actual device through FortiManager proxy, returns success/error status, and includes error messages. However, it does not discuss potential slowness, permissions, or rate limits, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, separate sections for args, returns, and an example. Every sentence is necessary, and the front-loaded purpose sentence immediately conveys the tool's function. No superfluous content.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers behavior, return format, and error handling. The example further clarifies usage, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' section provides brief yet meaningful definitions: 'adom: ADOM name', 'device: Device name'. This adds value beyond the schema's bare types, though more detail (e.g., valid patterns) would be beneficial.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get real-time status from a managed device' via FortiManager proxy, specifying real-time data like CPU, memory, uptime. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_device_status or get_system_status by emphasizing the real-time, proxy-mediated nature.

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 usage for obtaining current device status but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative status tools (e.g., get_device_status) or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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