list_port_forwards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation by saying 'List' and mentions the cross-referenced policy output, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, permissions, or whether optional filters default to all VIPs. Significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the primary resource. It uses the parenthetical to clarify the domain-specific synonym, which is efficient use of space.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and notes the policy cross-reference. However, it leaves return shape, volume, and filtering semantics entirely to the schema and inference, which is thin given the absence of structured behavioral metadata.

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 all three parameters (vdom, filter, format) are already documented with examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('virtual IPs (port forwards / static NAT)'), and clarifies the Fortinet terminology mapping. It also adds that each VIP is returned alongside the policies using it, which helps an agent anticipate scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_firewall_policies, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., list_firewall_policies, get_firewall_policy, or the create/delete port-forward siblings). Usage is only implied by the name. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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