get_config_xpath

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds [READ-ONLY] and clarifies that it targets the configuration tree. However, it does not disclose output format, error behavior, or any other behavioral nuances beyond what annotations already communicate.

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 sentences with no fluff. The read-only marker is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by defining the tool's scope as the entire configuration tree.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with complete schema documentation and safety annotations, the description is functionally complete. It could mention the return format or explicitly bound configuration-tree vs operational-state reads, but these are minor given the simple contract.

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 100%: both xpath and firewall have meaningful descriptions, including an example and the multi-firewall condition. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('configuration at a specific XPath location'), then clarifies it can query any part of the PanOS configuration tree. This clearly distinguishes it from the many specialized object-specific getter tools in the sibling list.

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 this is the general-purpose fallback for reading arbitrary configuration paths, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over specialized getters or run_show_command. It provides context but no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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