get_security

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

The description adds important behavioral details beyond the annotations: client-side catalog search, automatic name resolution for site/element, pagination token semantics, and that zero matches still return the same collection key with an empty list. These disclosures go well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, giving the agent a clear model of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 well-structured with a brief overview followed by a labeled Args list. Each sentence earns its place, providing necessary detail without fluff. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, and the format makes it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, a 10-value enum, and an output schema, all of which require substantial context. The description covers operation-specific arg requirements, special behavior for SD-WAN app IDs, pagination, and response shape notes. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description essentially repeats the schema text without adding extra nuance (e.g., no format details beyond what's in the schema). Per calibration, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and identifies the exact resources: security zones, application catalog/version, prefixes, and SD-WAN apps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_routing or get_wan by enumerating the unique resource categories.

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 detailed per-operation usage guidelines, such as which arguments are required or ignored for each operation (e.g., 'site_zones requires site, element_zones requires site and element'). It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the resource scope is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool; the lack of explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons prevents a 5.

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