fw_get_rulebase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about return volume, pagination, permission requirements, or result ordering for what could be a very large rulebase. The only behavioral cue is the read-like verb 'Return', and 'full' is slightly at odds with the optional filtering parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Brevity is appropriate, though it leaves the definition thin rather than earning a top score.

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 simple one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not indicate what a rule entry contains or how large the response may be, which matters for an agent deciding whether to filter.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enabled_only parameter and its default are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail and its word 'full' arguably undercuts the filtering option, so it earns only the baseline.

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 clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('full firewall security rulebase'), which is readily distinguishable from siblings like fw_get_device_info or fw_get_traffic_logs. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling tools, no stated prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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