unifi_list_firewall_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields and warning that protocols/ports are encoded inside source/destination.trafficFilter, not as top-level fields. This helps prevent mistaken assumptions about the response shape.

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 dense and efficient: it front-loads the core purpose, then lists key return fields, highlights an important encoding caveat, and points to the ordering tool. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 annotated read-only behavior, an output schema, and full parameter schema coverage, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It even clarifies where nested data (trafficFilter) lives and directs the agent to a separate tool for evaluation order, which is the main adjacent context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with parameter descriptions for siteId, limit, filter, and offset. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. The 'at a site' phrasing reinforces siteId's role but doesn't go beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List firewall policies (zone-based rules) at a site.' This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like unifi_get_firewall_policy (singular) and unifi_get_firewall_policy_ordering (ordering).

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 provides clear context: this tool lists multiple firewall policies at a site. It also explicitly routes evaluation-order needs to unifi_get_firewall_policy_ordering, which is a useful alternative. It does not state exclusions for when to use the singular getter, but the listing vs. getting distinction is sufficiently implied.

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