get_firewall

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint). The description adds that it returns the full rule set and metadata, which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens for a nonexistent rule) or auth/permission requirements that would go beyond the 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, front-loaded with the identifying key and resource, then the inspection use case and return content. No filler or repetition.

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 3-param read-only lookup with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the key, the use case, and the return shape. It stops short of mentioning pagination or error handling, but those are minor for a single-resource get.

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 all three parameters (name, region, account) are already documented in the schema with examples like 'us-east-1' and 'Spinnaker account name'. The description only restates the requirement to supply account, region, and name, adding no new semantics such as format constraints or optionality. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Get), resource (firewall rule / security group), and the composite key (account, region, name). It explicitly distinguishes itself from its obvious sibling list_firewalls by being the single-item lookup rather than the collection.

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 gives a clear use case ('inspect inbound/outbound rules and associated resources'), which tells the agent this is the inspection tool. However, it does not explicitly name list_firewalls as the alternative for enumeration, so routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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