list_supported_vendors

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It correctly indicates a read-only listing operation and hints at the returned content (vendor identifiers and format requirements). While it does not detail output schema or performance traits, the tool is simple and zero-parameter, so the description 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?

Two concise sentences: the first describes the action, the second provides usage context. No extraneous words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers its purpose and context. It links to sibling tools, making clear how it fits into a larger workflow.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description meets this by not requiring further clarification.

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 ('List') and resource ('supported firewall vendors and their configuration format requirements'). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like analyze_firewall_rule_overlap, which consume this information.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to understand what vendor identifiers and payload formats are accepted by analyze_firewall_rule_overlap and parse_policy.' This provides clear context and guidance on the tool's role in a workflow.

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