pve_sdn_vnet_firewall_rule_get

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as 'READ-ONLY', discloses that positions shift, and notes it is 'LIVE/IMMEDIATE family'. With no annotations provided, this effectively communicates key behavioral traits beyond what the schema offers, though it does not detail error handling or edge cases.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information without waste. It is concise yet informative.

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 that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the positional shift behavior, and the live/immediate nature. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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%, and the schema already describes all parameters (pos, vnet, proximo_target) adequately. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'get one vnet firewall rule by position', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list, add, remove, and update by emphasizing the read-only nature and positional retrieval.

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 warns about positions shifting after inserts/deletes and directs the agent to use pve_sdn_vnet_firewall_rules_list to find the current position before editing/removing. This provides clear guidance for when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it could explicitly state 'use this when you need a specific rule by position'.

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