Информация о группе правил firewall

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('returns details'), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint: false, which is a direct contradiction. This inconsistency confuses the agent about side effects. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the contradictory annotation.

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 efficiently conveys the action, target, and returned fields. It uses a colon to enumerate the details, avoiding unnecessary words while remaining complete.

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 getter with no output schema, the description is adequate—it lists the returned fields (name, description, policy, dates) and the input key (ID). It lacks mention of error conditions or related resources, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

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% for the single parameter group_id, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond confirming the parameter is the group's ID, so it sits at the baseline for high schema 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 returns details of a specific firewall rule group by ID, listing specific fields (name, description, policy, dates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_firewall_rule (which targets a rule, not a group) and list_firewall_groups (which lists groups, not a single one).

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 you have a group ID and need its details), but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus listing tools or how to obtain the ID. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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