list_firewall_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two important traits: the list contains compact fields, and the order reflects rule evaluation order. These go beyond the basic action and provide meaningful context for interpretation.

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 consists of two short sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds crucial ordering information, making it highly efficient.

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 description provides the core purpose and one behavioral detail, but lacks an output schema, explicit usage alternatives, or discussion of what 'compact fields' entails. For a simple list tool this is adequate, but there are clear gaps in supporting agent decision-making.

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% for all three parameters (vdom, device, include_hit_counts), so the schema already documents them well. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.

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 ('List') and resource ('firewall policies'), and adds a distinguishing detail about evaluation order. It is easily differentiated from the sibling tool 'get_firewall_policy' which implies retrieving a single policy.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that 'get_firewall_policy' is better for single-policy details or provide any contextual triggers for use.

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