get_dns_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys no safety profile (read-only vs mutation), no return shape, and no auth/permission notes. The only behavioral hint is the noun 'settings,' implying a retrieval, which is weak for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the defining clause follows immediately after the resource name. It is efficient, though it slightly under-specifies relative to its brevity.

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 with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives a hint about the returned content but no when-to-use context and no behavioral disclosure. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps an agent would need to close.

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% for the single vdom parameter, so the schema already documents it fully (default FORTIGATE_VDOM, usually root). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (system DNS settings) and clarifies what those settings contain (upstream resolvers the FortiGate itself uses and forwards to), which helps distinguish it from list_dns_servers. However, it omits a leading verb and does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer the boundary between this and the DNS server list tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_dns_servers or get_system_status. The agent is left to guess whether this returns the FortiGate's own resolver config versus configured DNS servers for clients.

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