get_firewall_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns all CMDB fields, which clarifies the scope of output. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions (e.g., policy not found), or any permissions required. The description is adequate for a simple get operation but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 conveys the purpose and output scope without waste. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse at a glance.

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 a simple get operation with one required parameter. The description explains the return value ('all cmdb fields') which compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, it does not mention default behavior for omitted vdom/device (which is in the schema), nor any specific error handling. For its simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 has 100% coverage for all three parameters (policy_id, vdom, device) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parametric meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 full detail of a single firewall policy, specifying 'all cmdb fields'. This distinguishes it from list_firewall_policies (which lists) and other resource-specific tools. The verb and resource are explicit 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?

Usage context is implied through 'single' and 'full detail', but no explicit mention of when to use this vs. alternatives like list_firewall_policies. The description does not provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, though the 'single' phrasing hints at targeted lookup use cases.

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