list_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The '[READ]' prefix signals it's non-mutating, and 'normalized' hints at output format. However, it doesn't disclose return structure, pagination, or whether the default target requires specific config context. For a read-only tool this is moderately adequate.

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?

The description is efficient—two short lines plus two one-line parameter clarifications. No wasted words. Could benefit from front-loading the most important usage note but is appropriately sized for a simple filtering tool.

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?

With 2 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete but misses some details. The '[READ]' marker plus 'normalized' hint covers basics. However, it doesn't explain what fields the returned rules contain or distinguish clearly from rule_detail/rule_stats, which are siblings that could be confused for similar purposes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add brief meaning: interface is 'an interface name to filter by (e.g. wan, lan)' and target is 'Firewall target name from config'. However, it does not specify what 'default' target resolves to or constrain valid values, leaving the agent to guess the format.

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 'List filter rules' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the '[READ]' marker denoting it's a read operation. The optional interface filter is mentioned. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like rule_detail/rule_stats/rule_states, but the purpose is 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?

The description implies when to use it (listing rules, optionally scoped to interface/target) but provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling tools are alternatives for different needs (e.g., rule_detail for specific rule, rule_stats for metrics). The 'omit for the default' note on target is helpful context.

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