pve_firewall_options_get

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

Starts with 'READ-ONLY' and 'No state change', which is important behavioral info. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Lacks auth or rate limit details, but for a read operation this is sufficient.

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?

Very concise: two sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY'. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists and parameters are fully described, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, parameter constraints, and return type. Could mention that output schema is available, but not necessary.

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%, so schema documents each parameter. Description adds context by linking scope values to required parameters (e.g., scope='node' requires node). This adds meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states 'get the firewall option block' with verb+resource, specifies scope (cluster/node/guest), and distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_firewall_options_set and pve_firewall_rules_list.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use (to get option block) and pairs with set and rules list. Provides scope-based parameter requirements. Could be improved by stating when not to use or alternatives beyond paired tools.

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