vm_firewall_rules_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description does add one behavioral detail beyond annotations: omitting 'node' triggers auto-location of the VM. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or behavior when the VM has no rules.

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?

A one-line purpose statement followed by a compact Args block, with the key fact (what is listed) front-loaded. The 'Args:' boilerplate is slightly formulaic but each line adds real information and there is no filler.

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 read-only three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and the optional-node behavior. It omits any indication of the return shape (rule fields, empty-result behavior), which is the main remaining gap.

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 carries the burden, and it does explain all three parameters: vmid as a numeric Proxmox VM id, target as a target name from config, and node with its omit-to-auto-locate default. It falls short of defining valid target values or expected formats, but it compensates well for the empty schema docs.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (list firewall rules) scoped to a VM, which implicitly separates it from cluster-wide tooling such as cluster_firewall_status. It does not explicitly name or compare against a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 [READ] tag and the resource name imply this is the inspection tool for VM-level firewall rules, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the cluster-level firewall alternative. The 'omit to auto-locate' note is a usage hint for one parameter rather than selection guidance.

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