panorama_get_post_rules

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with a '[READ-ONLY]' prefix. It adds useful behavioral context by stating it reads a specific config path rather than modifying runtime state. It does not discuss output format, but for a read-only retrieval tool with annotations this is adequate.

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 a single dense sentence with no wasted words. The read-only marker is front-loaded, followed by the action, resource, and config path. Every clause adds meaningful information.

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?

With two well-documented parameters, read-only annotations, and a clear config path, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly. No output schema exists, but the return value is sufficiently implied by 'Retrieves post-rules'.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions 'device group' in its purpose statement but adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') with a clear resource ('post-rules from a device group') and clarifies the semantic distinction ('rules pushed after local firewall rules'). The config path further pins down exactly which data is accessed, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like panorama_get_pre_rules.

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 establishes the appropriate context: use it when you need Panorama post-rulebase security rules for a device group. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the device-group scope and 'post-rules' wording make the intended use clear.

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