list_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the response carries matched and total counts, and FortiGate-self sessions are counted but omitted from the listing. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, pagination/truncation behavior beyond the count default, or permissions.

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 purpose and followed by the one genuinely surprising edge case. No filler, though the first sentence is slightly dense.

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, and the description partially compensates by stating the result includes matched and total session counts. For a risk-free list tool with fully documented parameters, that is nearly sufficient; only the exact result shape and any limit behavior remain unstated.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters (vdom, count, dstaddr, dstport, srcaddr, policyid, resolve_vms). The description adds only the general notion of optional filtering and no syntax, format, or interaction detail, so 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?

States the specific resource (current sessions through the firewall) and the scope of the result (matched and total session counts). The caveat that FortiGate admin sessions may be counted but not listed implicitly separates it from list_admin_sessions, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is indirect.

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?

'optionally filtered' implies how the tool is used but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The admin-session caveat is a scoping note, not routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer when this is preferable to list_admin_sessions or get_top_traffic.

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