firewall_rules

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds valuable behavioral detail: results are one-line summaries by default, and detail switches to full OPNsense rows, which tells the agent what it will actually receive.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose, followed by the sibling routing guidance and then a compact Args block. Every line earns its place with no redundant or filler text.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (one-line summaries vs. full rows) and covers all three parameters. It could be slightly richer about ordering or pagination behavior, but it gives the agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well. It explains search as a text filter over interface, description, and address; limit as a 1-1000 cap on returned rules; and detail as a switch between one-line summaries and full OPNsense rows.

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 identifies the resource (firewall filter ruleset) and its output shape (one line per rule), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from firewall_rule_get. However, it opens with a noun phrase rather than a specific verb, so it stops short of the strongest possible purpose statement.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool, firewall_rule_get, and the condition that selects it: when you need every field of one rule. That is strong routing guidance, though it doesn't cover when to prefer this tool over other firewall siblings like firewall_log or firewall_states.

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