get_firewall

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description reinforces this with 'Touches: reads only'. The genuinely additive content is the 'Bounds' line: two requests to Odoo.sh and a hard cap of 10 firewall entries, which is cost/cardinality context the annotations do not provide. It does not mention auth/permission requirements, so it falls short of a 5.

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 Returns/Touches/Bounds labeling is well-structured and front-loads the resource definition before the supporting facts. The opening sentence is long and slightly overloaded, and 'Touches: reads only' partly restates the readOnly annotation, so it is not maximally tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining the return payload is not strictly required, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description still adds useful operational bounds (request count, 10-entry cap). Only the meaning/format of the `project` input is left unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required `project` parameter, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly hints at the identifier form by saying the result contains 'the project's name', but gives no format, type, or accepted value guidance for the input. Partial compensation at best.

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?

Names a specific verb (Read) and resource (firewall of a project) and scopes it precisely: the public IPv4 addresses/ranges reaching production and staging builds via SSH and PostgreSQL. None of the siblings (get_session, list_projects, list_branches, list_builds, get_build, wait_for_build, read_log) overlap with this resource, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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 conveys the domain in which the tool is relevant (checking which IPs can reach builds), which implies when an agent would reach for it, but it never states an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition, nor does it point to any alternative or prerequisite. No sibling covers the same ground, so the omission is mild, but guidance is only implied.

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