list_firewalls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all firewalls' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify details like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, making it inadequate for informed use.

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 'List all firewalls' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of firewall objects, error conditions) or behavioral aspects like permissions. For a tool in a complex server environment with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 'List all firewalls' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('firewalls'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_firewall', 'delete_firewall', and 'update_firewall' by indicating a read-only operation. However, it lacks specificity about what 'all' entails (e.g., scope or filtering), preventing a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for listing firewalls, or how it differs from other list operations (e.g., 'list_servers'). Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer context from sibling tools, which is insufficient.

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