List firewall policies

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

The description states 'List all firewall policies,' but the annotation openWorldHint=true indicates the result set may not be exhaustive. This is a direct contradiction, as 'all' implies completeness. Additionally, no pagination or limit details are provided. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the contradiction undermines transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key fields. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and use case. It could mention that the output is read-only (already in annotations) or note ordering details more explicitly (e.g., priority order), but it is largely sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no param info, but this is acceptable given the zero-param input schema.

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 tool lists all firewall policies in order and specifies key fields returned. It is distinct from sibling tools like fortigate_get_policy (single) and fortigate_list_addresses (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 says 'Use this to understand traffic flow rules,' providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly contrast with get_policy, but the context of listing vs single retrieval is implicit. No when-not-to-use guidance, but adequate for a simple list.

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