describe_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the essential behavioral trait: this is a read-only schema introspection whose response varies in shape (table keyed by mkey vs. single settings object) and expands nested sub-fields when 'field' is supplied. It stops short of stating permission requirements, behavior for an unknown endpoint, or output size.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the drill-down behavior. The first sentence is dense with enumerated return content, but every clause contributes and there is 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain results, and it does: response shape, field metadata, and nested expansion. Gaps remain around missing/unknown endpoint handling and any privilege or VDOM scoping caveats, but for an introspection tool this is close to complete.

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 100%, so endpoint and vdom semantics are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds a modest amount for 'field' — that it returns the field in full including nested sub-fields — but gives no guidance on accepted endpoint path syntax beyond the schema's examples.

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 ("Describe a configuration endpoint from the FortiGate's schema") and immediately clarifies what the answer contains: table vs. single settings object, plus field type/values/range/default. This implicitly separates it from value-returning siblings like get_config, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to inspect the schema of an endpoint before reading or writing config, and pass 'field' to drill into one field. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives such as get_config (current values), set_config (mutation), or search_api (discovery), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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