get_firewall_state_size

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns both the current count and the maximum, which is useful context. However, no further behavioral details are disclosed (e.g., whether the data is cached or if pagination applies), so the bar is adequately met but not exceeded.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and elaborates with one additional clarifying sentence. Every word earns its place; it is both concise and informative.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotations, this description is complete. It explains the tool's function, what it returns, and the presence of an output schema covers the return structure. No gaps are evident.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description correctly implies none are needed, and there is no need to elaborate. This aligns with the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('firewall state table size and limits'). It also states the exact return value (active states and configured maximum), and it is distinct from sibling tools like update_firewall_state_size and search_firewall_states.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is a simple getter, but there is no mention of monitoring use cases or exclusions (e.g., 'for individual states, use search_firewall_states').

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