cluster_firewall_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'cluster-wide' scope, which is useful context not in the annotations. It does not mention return format, permissions, or rate limits; with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short lines with no waste, and the critical constraint ('cluster-wide') is front-loaded. Every token earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only status tool with an annotation covering safety, the description is essentially complete: it states what is read and the scope. It could mention what the result contains, but no output schema exists and the purpose is narrow enough that an agent has what it needs.

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 schema provides minimal documentation for the 'target' parameter beyond its type and default. The description says 'Proxmox target name from config', which adds some meaning, but does not explain accepted values, format, or behavior when omitted. Given one optional parameter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a specific verb+resource: reading cluster-wide firewall options, with a parenthetical narrowing the scope to 'notably whether it is enabled'. This distinguishes it from the sibling vm_firewall_rules_list which covers per-VM rules rather than cluster-wide status.

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?

'[READ]' signals this is a read-only tool and the scope 'cluster-wide firewall options' gives clear context for when to use it, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions. An agent can infer usage well, but the description does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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