list_fortitokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a useful operational caveat — tokens come from FortiGuard so the evaluation license has none — which explains empty results. However, it never confirms the operation is read-only, mentions no auth/permission requirements, and says nothing about pagination or result shape.

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 the returned data front-loaded and the FortiGuard caveat as a secondary note. No filler text; every sentence contributes information.

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 read-only list tool with a single fully-documented parameter, the description adequately conveys what is returned and adds a caveat about eval-license token absence. No output schema exists, so a brief return-value sketch would have helped, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the vdom parameter is fully documented in the schema (default FORTIGATE_VDOM, usually root). The description adds no parameter context, which is the expected baseline when the schema already covers it.

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 states a specific resource (FortiTokens) and the fields returned (serial, status, license) plus the related admin 2FA data (method, token). It is clear what the tool lists, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against.

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?

Usage is implied by the content — an agent would call this to inspect FortiToken inventory and admin MFA configuration. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no alternative tools named, and no conditions or prerequisites stated.

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