fw_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states it returns the rule set, but does not explicitly declare read-only nature, pagination, performance, or data format. The limitation about classic UI is disclosed, but more behavioral detail could be added.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, clarifying scope, and indicating return value. No fluff or 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema and four optional parameters, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and return. It lacks explicit mention of read-only behavior or example usage but is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get firewall rules' with a specific source (OPNsense Firewall Automation API) and distinguishes from classic UI rules. This sets it apart from sibling tools that modify or delete rules.

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 notes a key limitation (rules only from Automation API, not classic UI) and directs to OPNsense docs for more details. It implicitly indicates when to use this tool, but lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools like mkfw_rule or rmfw_rule.

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