firewalla-mcp-server

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

The annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the purpose of the response_format parameter ('markdown renders human-readable audit tables; json returns structured data suitable for chaining') and describing what the return contains ('full alarm record... may include device, remote endpoint, category, timestamps, and alarm-type-specific detail fields').

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by a usage guideline, then parameter context in a formatted Args section, and finally return value information. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero redundancy or wasted words.

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?

For a read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, clarifies parameter sources, describes output format implications, and outlines what information the alarm record contains - all without needing to duplicate what's already in structured fields.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal additional semantic context beyond the schema - it mentions that aid comes from firewalla_search_alarms results (already in schema) and explains the practical implications of response_format choices. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Fetch the full detail of a single alarm') and identifies the required resources (gid and aid). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling firewalla_search_alarms by stating 'Use this after firewalla_search_alarms to drill into one event,' establishing a clear relationship and differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this after firewalla_search_alarms to drill into one event') and references prerequisite tools for obtaining required parameters (firewalla_list_boxes for gid, firewalla_search_alarms for aid). This creates a clear workflow context and distinguishes it from other siblings.

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