list_aliases

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. The [READ] prefix signals non-mutating behavior, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, whether the list is limited, ordering, or any potential pitfalls. For a read operation this is acceptable but leaves some gaps about output semantics.

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?

Exceptionally concise: two lines of description plus a one-line arg doc. Every sentence earns its place—purpose, scope, and parameter semantics are covered with zero waste. The [READ] tag front-loads the safety profile.

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?

Given this is a straightforward list operation with 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers what is returned (name, type, description, member count) and parameter usage. It lacks differentiation from 'alias_entries' but is otherwise complete for a read-only list tool.

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 0% (the schema provides only a 'Target' field name with no description), so the description must compensate. It explains that 'target' is a firewall target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema field title.

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 clearly states 'All firewall aliases' with specific attributes (name, type, description, member count), using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from the adjacent 'alias_entries' sibling by focusing on the alias list view rather than individual entries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond scope.

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?

The description explains the target parameter context ('Firewall target name from config; omit for the default'), giving some implicit guidance on when to pass versus omit. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'alias_entries' tool, but the [READ] prefix and scoped output imply a list-context usage.

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