Список ресурсов группы firewall

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

The description states a read-only operation ('Возвращает список' - returns a list), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This is a clear contradiction: the tool seems to be a listing operation, yet the annotation suggests it may not be read-only. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond this inconsistent signal.

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?

A single, concise sentence clearly states the function and current scope. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 is simple, but the annotation contradiction makes the description misleading. No output schema is present, and the description does not clarify return format, pagination, or the significance of 'currently only servers'. The lack of usage guidance further reduces completeness.

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 only parameter, group_id, is fully described in the input schema as a required firewall group ID. The description refers to it indirectly ('указанной группе правил firewall') but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Returns a list') and clearly identifies the resource (resources attached to a firewall rule group) with a scope note ('currently only servers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_firewall_groups and list_firewall_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 implies usage by stating it lists resources for a specified firewall group, but it does not explicitly contrast with related tools such as list_firewall_groups_by_resource or explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. The 'currently only servers' hint gives some context but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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