test_security_policy_match

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces read-only behavior with [READ-ONLY]. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: this is the ground-truth result, including local rules invisible from Panorama, which is valuable for interpreting results. No contradiction exists.

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 with no filler. The read-only marker and core purpose are front-loaded, the ground-truth caveat is concise, and the source_user guidance earns its place as an actionable tip.

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 read-only query tool with high schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what the tool does, why it is authoritative, and one critical usage hint. The main gap is no description of return values, but no output schema exists and the purpose is simple enough that the matching rule result is reasonably inferable.

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 85%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds a specific, high-value semantic for source_user: include it so user/group-based rules are evaluated, which is not apparent from the schema alone. This helps the agent decide to set an optional parameter correctly.

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 and resource: it asks a managed firewall which security rule matches a flow (test security-policy-match). It also distinguishes this from siblings by calling it ground truth, including local rules invisible from Panorama, making its role among the many get_*/search_* tools clear.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: to determine the actual matching rule on a managed firewall, especially when Panorama-invisible local rules matter. It gives an actionable tip (include source_user) but stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives like get_security_rules or find_security_rules.

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