get_firewall

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description correctly implies a safe, idempotent read operation. The simple purpose is transparent and consistent with annotations; no hidden behaviors are suggested.

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 a clear structure. While very brief, it conveys the core purpose without waste. Could potentially add more detail for a read operation, but conciseness is maintained.

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 no output schema and 3 required parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain what details are returned or how to interpret them. However, for a simple get operation with high schema coverage and annotations, the gaps are minor but present.

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%, with each parameter (account, name, region) having a clear description. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage. 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?

Description clearly states 'Get details for a specific firewall rule (security group)', providing a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_firewalls (which lists) and other get_ tools (different resource).

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for a single rule by name, while list_firewalls is for enumerating. No explicit context or exclusion criteria are given.

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