aliases

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like pagination, default scope, or output format. It only says 'List firewall aliases', omitting details about whether it lists all aliases or supports filtering (the search param is only in the schema). This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's exact 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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key action. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 is adequate for a straightforward list tool with one optional parameter, given the schema covers the filter. However, the lack of behavioral details and no output schema description means the agent may need to infer return format and completeness. It is minimally complete.

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 100% coverage with a well-described 'search' parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, but per the guidelines, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3. The description does not compensate for the low-schema scenario.

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 function: 'List firewall aliases' with examples (IP groups, port groups), making it specific and distinct from sibling tools like fw_rules which manage rules. However, it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., 'all' aliases).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The description simply states the action without helping the agent decide.

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