get_network_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'conditions' entail. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 tool's complexity appears low (simple retrieval with 2 parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'conditions' means in the return data or differentiate from siblings, which could confuse an agent. With no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully helpful.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (limit and query). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensation needed.

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 'Retrieve firewall rules and conditions' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (firewall rules and conditions), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network_rules_summary' or 'search_rules', which appear to offer similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. With siblings like 'get_network_rules_summary' and 'search_rules' that likely retrieve similar data, there's no indication of differences in scope, filtering capabilities, or output format, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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