list_firewall_policies

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields and the VDOM defaulting behavior, but says nothing about whether output is paginated/truncated, whether it requires admin privileges, or how it behaves on an unreachable device. Read-only nature is only weakly implied by 'retrieves and displays'.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose, then a clarifying sentence, then compact Parameters and Returns blocks. The Returns list is slightly long for a list tool and the second sentence partly restates the first, but nothing is wasted outright.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id/name, addresses, services, action, status). It is nearly complete for a simple two-parameter list call; the missing pieces are pagination/size limits and any failure behavior, which matter for a device with many policies.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'vdom: Virtual Domain name (optional, uses device default)' explains the null-default semantics that the schema's bare 'Virtual Domain' description does not. device_id is only restated, not enriched.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'List all firewall policies configured on a FortiGate device', scoped to a device and VDOM, with a follow-up sentence clarifying that these are traffic control rules. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_firewall_policy_detail or lookup_policy, which an agent must infer from names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'list all' suggests a bulk enumeration, so an agent can guess that single-policy inspection belongs to get_firewall_policy_detail. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no prerequisites (e.g., device reachability, VDOM existence) called out.

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