Get firewall policy ordering

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the site-scoping note and 'current' state, saying nothing about whether the ordering reflects pending changes or what happens when no policies exist. Adequate but thin beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries information: the read verb, the resource, the ordering aspect, and the site scope.

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 does not explain the shape of the returned ordering (an ordered list of policy IDs? full policy objects?). Since the primary consumer of this result is likely reorder_firewall_policies, the missing description of the return structure is a real gap for a tool whose output is the input to another call.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing the description could add on the input side. The schema is empty and fully described by default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the current ordering of firewall policies') and scopes it to the current site. It is clearly distinct from unifi_net_reorder_firewall_policies by implication of 'Returns', but never names that sibling or the generate-spec twin unifi_gen_getfirewallpolicyordering to make the split explicit.

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: an agent can infer this is the read step before calling reorder_firewall_policies, but the description never says so, nor does it state prerequisites (site must be active, policies must exist) or when to prefer the unifi_gen_ variant.

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