pve_firewall_rules_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool is read-only and returns active rules with fields like action, direction, protocol, and address/port. However, it does not mention permissions, pagination, or other constraints, making it minimally adequate.

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-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundancy. 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?

The tool is a simple list operation. The description mentions return fields and provides an alternative tool, which is sufficient context. The presence of an output schema (not shown) further supports completeness. Minor gap: no explanation of parameter 'kind'.

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 only 20% (only proximo_target has a description). The description mentions 'scope' but not other parameters like kind, node, or vmid. Parameter semantics are insufficiently explained, leaving many parameters ambiguous.

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 lists firewall rules for a given scope (cluster, node, or guest), uses a specific verb 'list', and identifies the resource (firewall rules). It also distinguishes itself from pve_firewall_options_get by specifying that tool reads settings.

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 explicitly mentions using pve_firewall_options_get for firewall settings, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool. However, it does not reference other related siblings like pve_firewall_rule_add or pve_firewall_security_group_list, which could be useful.

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