get_monitor

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a read-only path and that POST monitor endpoints cause device actions (reboots, disconnects, updates), which is genuinely valuable risk context. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior for the GET endpoints it does allow.

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 capability before the constraint. Every clause earns its place: the examples establish scope, and the reboots/disconnects/updates parenthetical justifies the POST exclusion.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could say more about what live-state data comes back, but for a generic endpoint proxy that is inherently endpoint-specific. Parameters are schema-covered and the GET/POST boundary is covered, leaving only return-format and multi-request behavior unaddressed.

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 vdom, params, and endpoint are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces endpoint examples (system/ha-peer, router/ipv4) already implied by the schema's examples, adding little syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Read) and a specific resource (any monitor / live-state endpoint) and names its scope with concrete examples (system/ha-peer, router/ipv4, vpn/ipsec, user/firewall). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by routing POST monitor endpoints to the dedicated tools or fortigate_api.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it: endpoints FortiOS only serves with POST belong to dedicated tools or fortigate_api. That is a clear usage boundary. It doesn't spell out when to prefer a dedicated read tool (e.g. get_system_status) over this generic one, which keeps it from a 5.

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