get_firewall_policies

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: policies are evaluated in index order, and predefined '(Return)' companions appear alongside custom rules. It also notes the UniFi Network 9+ version requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then behavioral context, and then management alternatives. It is structured and each paragraph carries useful information. The only minor redundancy is the Args block duplicating schema text.

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?

With no output schema, the description summarizes the return payload sufficiently: name, action, protocol, index order, and source/destination zone ids. It also covers optional site/device targeting and key evaluation behavior. Pagination or exact response shape is not described, but that is a minor gap for a read-only list operation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already described in the schema with the exact same text as the description's Args section. The description adds no new semantic meaning over the schema. Baseline 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 opens with 'Get zone-based firewall policies (UniFi Network 9+)', a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the returned fields. The 'zone-based' qualifier clearly differentiates this from the sibling get_firewall_rules. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 names create_firewall_policy, set_firewall_policy_enabled, and delete_firewall_policy as the tools for adding or managing policies, guiding the agent to the right call for non-read operations. It also reinforces the read-only nature, which helps distinguish it from mutation tools. It does not explicitly contrast with get_firewall_rules, but the management alternatives are clearly stated.

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