vm_firewall_rules_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It starts with '[READ]', indicating a safe read operation, and lists parameters. However, it does not disclose output format, pagination, permissions, or prerequisites beyond the parameters.

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 very concise, with clear front-loading of purpose ('[READ] List the firewall rules...') followed by a structured argument list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., format of rules list). It only describes input parameters. For a list operation, this is a significant gap. Also lacks prerequisites (e.g., VM must exist).

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%, yet the description explains all three parameters: vmid ('Numeric Proxmox VM id'), target ('Proxmox target name from config'), and node ('Node name; omit to auto-locate the VM'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 the firewall rules attached to a VM.' This is a specific verb ('list') and resource ('firewall rules of a VM'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cluster_firewall_status (cluster-level) and vm_config (VM configuration).

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 usage for listing firewall rules of a specific VM, and '[READ]' indicates it's a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cluster_firewall_status or 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.