get_firewall_refs

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

No annotations are provided, and the description merely restates the name. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, auth requirements, or that it is a read-only operation. The description adds no value beyond the tool's name.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 13 words. Every word is informative, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately states what the tool returns (aliases, ipsets, names). It is sufficient for a simple list operation, though it could mention that it combines multiple reference types.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'available firewall references' with specific examples (aliases, ipsets, names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_firewall_aliases or list_firewall_ipsets which are more granular.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it aggregates multiple reference types, nor does it direct the agent to more specific list tools if needed.

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