raw_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully goes further by naming the enforcement mechanisms (prefix allowlist, verb denylist, no traversal) and the consequence ('cannot change firewall state'). It omits what happens on a denied path and whether the body is passed through verbatim, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the safety guarantees, then the single arg with an example. No filler; the Args block duplicates the schema slightly but is scannable and compact.

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 one-parameter escape-hatch tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete: an agent still lacks guidance on when this is preferable to a dedicated sibling and on how to find valid paths, which is the crux of calling it 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 burden. It does supply the essential contract — the path must begin with /api/ and an example is given — but it does not say how to discover which paths are allowlisted or what a rejection looks like, leaving the single parameter only partially characterized.

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?

States a specific verb (GET) and resource (any allowlisted OPNsense API path), so the agent knows this is a generic read passthrough. However, it never contrasts itself with the twenty specific siblings (system_status, firewall_rules, etc.), so the boundary between this and a dedicated read tool is left to inference.

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 covers safety constraints but gives no when-to-use guidance: nothing says 'prefer the dedicated tool when one exists' or 'use this for endpoints not otherwise exposed.' With 20 specific siblings, that omission is the main routing risk. The phrase 'the same read-only rules apply' also references rules defined elsewhere, adding no standalone guidance.

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