opnsense_nat_source_list

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

The description declares 'Read-only' and lists the return fields (UUID, sequence, interface, source/destination, target, enabled state). With no annotations, this provides good safety and behavioral context, though it could mention potential pagination or limits.

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-loading the purpose and read-only nature, followed by return fields. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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?

Given the simple tool (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It lists return fields and confirms a listing operation. Minor omission: no mention of default sorting or ordering.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds that it lists 'all' rules, confirming no filtering, but adds no further parameter semantics.

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 'List all Source NAT (outbound) rules' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like `opnsense_nat_source_get` (single rule) and other NAT tools.

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 for listing all source NAT rules but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `opnsense_nat_source_get` for specific rules. No exclusions or context for selection are provided.

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