Информация о правиле firewall

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

The description lists the returned attributes, adding some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits such as error handling, permission requirements, or that it requires both IDs to be valid. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (odd for a getter) but the description neither contradicts nor enriches that significantly.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Возвращает детали конкретного правила firewall') and then lists the expected fields. No wasted words; it is concise and well-structured.

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 get-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose and enumerates the return contents. It does not explain return structure or errors, but the low complexity makes that acceptable. A small gap is the lack of any guidance on how to obtain the required IDs.

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 already fully describes the two required parameters (rule_id and group_id) with clear descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond referring to a 'specific rule', so it does not meaningfully elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 it returns details of a specific firewall rule and enumerates the fields (direction, protocol, port, CIDR, description, group ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_firewall_rules, which lists rules, and get_firewall_group, which gets group-level info.

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 for obtaining details of a single rule, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks guidance like 'use list_firewall_rules to enumerate rules first' or 'requires an existing rule ID.' The context is clear but no explicit alternatives are named.

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