get_packet_capture_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that this is a status read, explains the all-versus-filtered response behavior, and documents the return structure. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or error conditions beyond noting the message field.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and filtering behavior, then structured into Args, Returns, and Example. Each section adds practical value, and the example clarifies how to read the running flag.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only status tool, the description is complete: purpose, filtering behavior, parameter meaning, return keys, and an invocation example are all present. The output schema also exists, so the return details are supplementary rather than required.

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 sole parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining that capture_id is optional, identifies a specific capture definition, and filters the response; unset returns all captures' status.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting running/packet-count status for packet captures. It clearly distinguishes this from definition-listing and capture-control siblings by describing the returned status fields such as running, packets, and max_packets.

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?

It explains that FortiManager reports progress for all capture definitions in one call and that capture_id filters down to a single definition. This gives clear context for optional filtering, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_packet_captures or explain when not to use this tool.

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