list_vm_firewall_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'List firewall rules for a VM.' It does not mention whether this is read-only, requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, some behavioral context is still expected.

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 one short sentence that immediately states the purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details.

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 simple with two required parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally viable. However, it omits any indication of what the response looks like (e.g., array of rules) or whether the operation is safe. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions ('Node where VM is located' and 'VM ID'), so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is already sufficient.

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 action (List) and the resource (firewall rules for a VM), which fully specifies the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_container_firewall_rules by explicitly scoping to VMs.

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 scoping to VMs implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_container_firewall_rules for containers) or provide exclusion criteria. This is implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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