download_certificate

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 meaningfully disclose that only the public part is returned (implying the private key is never exposed) and what the return contains (PEM + SHA-256 fingerprint). It stops short of stating read-only/non-destructive nature, auth requirements, or error behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and its scope are front-loaded before the example and the return-value note.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers return values (PEM and fingerprint), and the schema fully covers the three parameters. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, with only the safety/permission profile left implicit.

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 name, type, and vdom are already documented in the schema, including the type value list. The description only echoes the name example already present in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning.

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+resource ('Download a certificate's PEM') and scopes it precisely with '(public part only)' plus a concrete example (Fortinet_CA_SSL). An agent can distinguish it from list_certificates by the download/retrieve framing, though no sibling is named 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?

The description implies the use case ('so clients can be told to trust it') but never states when to use this versus list_certificates or get_interface-style siblings, and gives no prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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