panorama_list_firewalls

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description legitimately focuses on additional behavior. It discloses the specific data fields returned (hostname, serial, IP, model, version, connection, sync state), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It also clarifies that output values are meant to be used as device identifiers in other tools. It does not contradict annotations.

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 that immediately state the tool's purpose and the composition of the returned data, followed by a practical usage instruction. There is no redundant filler; the only minor redundancy is the READ-ONLY tag, but that is a useful signal despite being in annotations.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields and explains how to use those values downstream. The optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. It could be improved by noting any pagination or limits on the result size, but that is not a major gap for a list tool.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool lists Panorama-managed firewalls and enumerates the fields (hostname, serial, IP, model, version, connection, policy/template sync state). The 'managed by Panorama' qualifier distinguishes it from non-Panorama firewall listing tools like list_firewalls, and the guidance to use the hostname/serial as 'device' reinforces its role.

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 the tool is a source of device identifiers for subsequent calls ('Use the hostname or serial as device in other tools'), which is a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar sibling tools (e.g., panorama_get_managed_devices) or when not to use it, leaving usage boundaries to inference.

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