List firewall rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds that rules come back in evaluation order and include packet/byte counters, which is genuine value. It says nothing about device scoping, ordering guarantees across tables, or truncation behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the table list and the counters note are the two facts an agent most needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description's mention of counters partially covers return content, and annotations cover safety. But for a five-parameter tool spanning multiple devices, tables, chains and an ipv6 switch, the description leaves truncation, default-device scoping and ipv6 behavior unexplained.

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?

At 60% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description roughly holds there: it echoes the table enum values and the notion of order, but a rule's ordering relative to chain/ipv6 selection is unaddressed. The undocumented ipv6 parameter and the semantics of chain filtering are not compensated for.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List firewall rules") with the enumerated tables and a note that counters are included, which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. It is implicitly the read counterpart to mikrotik_firewall_add_rule, but it never names or contrasts that sibling.

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 statement of when to use this versus mikrotik_print, mikrotik_firewall_add_rule, or other table-listing siblings, and no prerequisites. The read-only intent is only inferable from the verb "List".

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