get_ha_status

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

The description discloses that the tool returns HA status, cluster members, sync status, and roles, and includes error handling. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only and non-destructive, though this is implied. The description could be more explicit about side effects (none).

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 first-line purpose, bullet points for key outputs, a return type explanation, and an example. It is slightly verbose but each section adds value. No wasted sentences.

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 (no parameters, no output schema shown but exists), the description covers return values, error handling, and example usage. It is complete enough for an agent to understand input, output, and behavior. The output schema likely covers the struct, so the description's extra details are additive.

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 0 parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. Baseline score of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids adding redundant parameter information.

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 retrieves FortiManager HA status, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('HA status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_system_status' by specifying HA-specific fields such as cluster members and sync status.

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 checking HA cluster status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'health_check' or 'get_system_status'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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