panorama_get_device_group_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a config path ('/config/readonly/.../device-group') and clarifies the hierarchy focus, which is helpful context. It does not describe return shape or potential absent hierarchy behavior, but this is a simple read operation.

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 core behavior is front-loaded, and the supplementary config path is directly relevant. Every sentence 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 low-complexity read tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention what the hierarchy output contains beyond parent-child relationships, but the description is adequate for a correct call.

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 100%, with the single optional 'firewall' parameter already documented in the schema. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('device group hierarchy showing parent-child relationships'), which clearly distinguishes it from the nearby sibling panorama_get_device_groups and panorama_list_device_groups. The emphasis on hierarchy makes the tool's unique purpose immediately understandable.

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: an agent should call this when it needs device group parent-child relationships. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with the sibling tools that also deal with device groups, nor does it state when to prefer one over the other. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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