Группы firewall для ресурса

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

The description indicates a read-only operation (returns a list), but the annotations set readOnlyHint to false, directly contradicting the description. This is a serious inconsistency, as the agent may be misled about the tool's effects. Flagged as annotation contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned and when to use it. However, the annotation contradiction slightly undermines completeness, as the agent cannot fully rely on the stated safety profile.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (resource_type, resource_id) already adequately described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool returns a list of firewall rule groups attached to a specific resource, using the verb 'Возвращает список' (returns a list) and specifies the resource scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_firewall_groups (all groups) and list_firewall_group_resources (resources per group).

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 explicit usage context: 'Используй, чтобы узнать какие группы защищают сервер' (Use to find out which groups protect the server). It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the resource-specific focus is clear enough.

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