list_cluster_firewall_rules

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, permissions required, or performance considerations. The word 'List' hints at read-only, but explicit disclosure is missing.

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 no wasted words. Could be slightly more informative (e.g., about access or output), but it is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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 existence of an output schema (context: 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately states the operation and scope, though it could mention that this operation is safe to call or requires cluster permissions.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none. Baseline 4 for zero parameters with good schema coverage.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'cluster-level firewall rules'. The name itself makes the scope clear, and it distinguishes from sibling list tools for node, container, and VM scopes.

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 implies usage by stating 'cluster-level', but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_node_firewall_rules or list_vm_firewall_rules. No when-not or alternative references are provided.

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