get_pf_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as potential large responses, whether the table must exist, or error behavior. It neither contradicts nor enriches beyond the annotations, earning a baseline 3.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It directly communicates the tool's purpose without wasting words.

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 one-parameter getter with read-only annotations and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential purpose, and the schema and annotations fill in the remaining context.

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% and the single parameter 'name' is well described with examples. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies for high coverage.

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 tool gets the contents of a specific pf firewall table. The verb 'Get' and resource 'contents of a specific pf firewall table' are specific and distinguish it from siblings like search_pf_tables (which lists tables) and get_pf_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the table name should come from search_pf_tables or that this is for inspecting a known table's contents. The schema parameter hint does not count because the description itself should carry this information.

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