get_pbf_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the config path as a small extra behavioral detail, but the '[READ-ONLY]' prefix merely repeats the annotation. No return format, pagination, or filtering behavior is disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the verb and resource, the second gives the config path. The '[READ-ONLY]' tag is redundant with annotations but costs little and aids quick scanning.

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 read-only getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the essential call context. It lacks any hint about the return structure, but the config path and clear scope make the tool usable without more.

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?

The single 'firewall' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source (firewalls.json) and conditional requirement ('Required when multiple firewalls are configured; optional otherwise'). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the exact resource ('policy-based forwarding (PBF) rules') and expands the acronym, making the tool's function immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_security_rules and get_nat_rules by naming PBF specifically.

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 context is clear: this tool retrieves PBF rules, and the config path ('/config/.../rulebase/pbf/rules') further clarifies it reads from the firewall configuration. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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