Список правил firewall в группе

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the exact return fields (ID, direction, protocol, port, CIDR, description), which is especially useful given no output schema is provided. It does not contradict the annotations, and the readOnlyHint=false is not a direct contradiction since the description doesn't claim side effects. It stops short of mentioning pagination, auth, or error behavior, but the field list is substantive for a list tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and enumerates the returned fields with no wasted words. It is optimally concise and 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 list tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return format and parameter context. It omits potential pagination or error details, but the low complexity and strong sibling context make it sufficiently complete. A 4 reflects that it goes beyond a minimal description but isn't exhaustive.

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% and the property description already clearly explains 'ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - ID группы правил firewall'. The description repeats the notion of 'указанной группе' but adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 action ('Возвращает список правил firewall') and the resource ('в указанной группе'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_firewall_groups (which lists groups) or get_firewall_rule (which retrieves a single rule). The verb is specific and unambiguous.

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 requiring a group_id, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when-not-to-use. For instance, it doesn't mention that list_firewall_groups_by_resource might be relevant for other contexts. This is intermediate between clear context and only implied guidance.

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