find_blocked_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the filtering behavior (block/reject), which is the core function. However, it does not mention any limitations, such as whether the search includes both interface-specific and floating rules, or whether results are paginated. With annotations in place, this is acceptable but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 that is direct, specific, and front-loaded with the action. There is no redundant wording, and every word contributes to clarifying the tool's scope. This is an example of efficient, well-structured description.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required parameters, output schema provided, and safe read annotations), the description fully covers what the tool does. The output schema likely explains return values, the parameter schema explains the filter, and the description explains the selection criteria. No additional context is necessary for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 one optional parameter 'interface' with a clear description ('Optional interface filter (wan, lan, etc.)'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not re-describe the parameter, but the schema alone provides sufficient meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since no additional parameter context is needed.

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 specific action ('Find all firewall rules') with a precise scope ('that block or reject traffic'). This distinguishes it from generic rule listing tools like search_firewall_rules, which likely return all rules without the block/reject filter. The verb+resource+qualifier combination leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies usage when the user wants to identify blocking/rejecting firewall rules, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_firewall_rules, analyze_blocked_traffic, or get_firewall_log. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the decision to the agent based on context.

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