get_log_targets

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 add substantive behavioral context: it surfaces risk flags such as memory-only logs lost on reboot, cleartext UDP syslog, and FortiAnalyzer without certificate verification. However, it never states that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions or rate limits.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary answer ('where logs go') before listing destinations and risk flags. No filler, though the warning clauses make it slightly long for one sentence.

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 and no annotations, the description must describe the return content, and it does so reasonably well — destination types, transports, encryption, and notable warnings. It is nearly complete, missing only read-only/auth framing.

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% and the single optional 'vdom' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description provides no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource ('where logs go') and enumerates the destinations returned (syslog servers, FortiAnalyzer, FortiGuard Cloud, local disk/memory) with transport and encryption context. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_logs and set_syslog_target, though it never names those alternatives.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_logs (retrieve log data) or set_syslog_target (configure destinations). Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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