VPS_getFirewallDetailsV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data (firewall and its rules) but does not disclose potential limitations, response size, or any side effects. Since it is a read operation, the lack of destructive hints is acceptable, but more detail on what exactly is returned would improve transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence captures the action and resource, the second provides usage guidance. Every word is purposeful.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It mentions both firewall configuration and rules, covering the key output aspects. However, it does not specify whether the rules are returned inline or separately, which could be clarified.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'firewallId' described as 'Firewall ID'. The tool description merely repeats 'by its ID' adding no new semantic meaning. With schema coverage high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve firewall by its ID and rules' which specifies a verb (retrieve) and a resource (firewall with rules). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool VPS_getFirewallListV1 which lists all firewalls, and from mutation tools like VPS_createFirewallRuleV1.

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 second sentence explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this endpoint to view specific firewall configuration and rules.' This implies that for viewing a single firewall's details, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, which is acceptable given the clear sibling context.

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