run_show_command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by requiring the command root to be <show> or <test>, and it front-loads the read-only nature. It does not describe error behavior or output format, but for an arbitrary-command tool this is acceptable.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. It starts with the read-only marker, states the root-element constraint, specifies the execution target, and ends with the routing rule. Every phrase 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 deliberately open-ended arbitrary-command tool, the description provides the essential constraints: root element, target selection, and when to use it. The absence of an output schema is reasonable because operational command outputs vary. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 all three parameters with patterns, lengths, examples, and a reference to panorama_list_firewalls. The description adds only the root-element rule, which is useful but does not significantly increase parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it runs an arbitrary read-only operational command against Panorama or a managed firewall. The root-element constraint (<show> or <test>) and the phrase 'Use when no dedicated tool exists' clearly distinguish it from the many dedicated get_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use when no dedicated tool exists.' It also tells the agent how to target a managed firewall via 'device' versus Panorama by default, providing a clear routing rule with no ambiguity.

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