list_firewall_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: first-match-wins evaluation and common security checks, which is valuable but not contradictory.

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?

Four sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second gives behavioral rule, third lists common checks, fourth references sibling tool. Well-structured.

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 lack of parameters and output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its behavioral implications. Could optionally add output format, but sufficient for selection and invocation.

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?

With zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline is 4 per guidelines.

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 the tool lists all firewall policies with source/destination zones, actions, and ordering. It distinguishes from the sibling manage_firewall_policy which handles mutations.

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?

Explicitly mentions that policies are evaluated in order (first match wins) and provides specific checks (overly permissive rules, missing inter-zone rules, disabled policies). Directs to manage_firewall_policy for modifications.

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