firewall_addrgrp_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if there are any side effects, or if pagination applies. The description is too minimal for full transparency.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the main purpose. It is concise but could be improved by front-loading key details or adding structure.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no required params, output schema present), the description is adequate. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, preventing a higher 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 only parameter 'vdom' has a comprehensive schema description that explains its purpose and default behavior. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, aligning with baseline 3.

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 'List all IPv4 firewall address groups,' specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like firewall_address_list or firewall_addrgrp_get, which list individual addresses or get a specific group.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as firewall_addrgrp_get for a specific group or firewall_address_list for individual addresses. The description lacks context on usage scenarios.

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