opn_list_firewall_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that only MVC API rules are returned and legacy rules are invisible, even noting that a result of 0 does not mean no rules exist. It also describes the return format as dict with 'rows' and 'rowCount'.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, an important note in a separate paragraph, and a usage line. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core function.

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 has only 2 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: scope, limitation (legacy rules excluded), and return format. The only gap is the lack of parameter explanations, which prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema has two parameters (search and limit) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain these parameters at all, failing to add meaning beyond what the schema provides. With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate but does not.

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 it lists firewall filter rules configured via the MVC API, distinguishing it from legacy rules. The verb 'List', resource 'firewall filter rules', and scope are specific, and it differentiates from sibling tools like opn_list_nat_rules and opn_list_firewall_aliases.

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 says 'Use this when you need to inspect MVC-managed firewall filter rules.' It warns that legacy rules are not included, providing important context for when not to rely on this tool. However, it does not name alternative tools for legacy rules, so a slight deduction for lack of explicit alternatives.

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