get_fw_dmz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it returns config and lists error codes, but does not disclose that it is a read-only operation, any side effects, or authentication requirements. The error codes are helpful but insufficient.

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 extremely concise (one sentence plus error codes). It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without being verbose, so not a perfect 5.

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 that there is an output schema (not provided), the description could compensate by explaining the return structure or typical usage, but it only gives error codes. It lacks details about what DmzConfig contains, any limitations, or when to expect errors.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no extra meaning for parameters, but that is acceptable. It provides error codes that add some context.

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 it returns the current DmzConfig, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_fw_incoming or get_fw_redir, but the context of DMZ is unique enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use get_fw_dmz vs put_fw_dmz or other get_fw tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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