get_policy_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the returned metrics but says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, permission requirements, whether counters are cumulative/resettable, or how stale last-used data might be.

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 listing the metric set with zero filler. It is efficient, though terse enough that it under-specifies rather than over-explains.

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, so the description does useful work by naming the returned metrics. However, with no annotations and no usage or caveat context for a stats tool, it is only minimally complete for an agent that needs to know when and why to call it.

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%: the vdom default (FORTIGATE_VDOM, usually root) and the optional policyid filter are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so the baseline 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 names the resource (policy) and enumerates the returned statistics (hit counts, bytes, packets, last-used time), so an agent knows this is a per-policy counters/metrics reader distinct from get_firewall_policy or list_firewall_policies. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but the resource and payload are clear.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as get_top_traffic, get_firewall_policy, or get_system_status. It does not mention the vdom scoping default or the one-policy filter as a usage consideration, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema.

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