list_firewall_rules

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

The description indicates a read-only action via the verb 'List.' It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but with no annotations, the description carries the burden. Since listing is inherently read-only and no mutating behavior is implied, it is sufficiently transparent, though it could be more explicit about the absence of side effects.

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 concise and well-structured. It states the purpose in one sentence and then provides parameter details, with no unnecessary wording or repetition.

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?

The description covers the essential use case and parameter behavior. It does not detail the return format, but since an output schema is indicated (though not shown), that may be unnecessary. Overall, it provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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 description explains both parameters: vmid targets a specific VM/container, node targets a node, and notes that vmid takes precedence. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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's action: 'List firewall rules.' It also specifies the target scopes (VM/CT, node, or cluster), which distinguishes it from other list tools like list_snapshots or list_networks.

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 usage guidance by explaining the optional parameters and their precedence (vmid overrides node). It implicitly indicates when to use each targeting option, though it does not explicitly compare with other list tools or state when not to use it.

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