sophos_get_firewall_rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Retrieve' aligns. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, permissions) are disclosed, but annotations cover the safety aspect sufficiently.

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 extremely concise: three sentences cover purpose, usage, and parameter definitions. No unnecessary words, and the most important info appears first.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the essential aspects: what, when, and parameters. Minor gap: no mention of behavior when rule not found, but not critical.

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 name parameter's description in both schema and description is redundant, but the client parameter lacks a schema description and the description adds 'Optional SophosFirewallClient instance', providing needed clarity beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve details for a specific firewall rule by name', which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list, create, update, and delete rules.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'Use when inspecting full policy configuration for a single firewall rule.' Though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the sibling set implies when not to use (e.g., for listing use list_firewall_rules).

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