sophos_get_firewall_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It indicates the tool polls a status/result, which is helpful, but does not clarify expected behaviors such as return format, poll frequency, or error handling. This is adequate for a simple polling tool but lacks depth.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with zero redundant information. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., status string, result object). It only mentions 'status/result' without specifics. Additionally, it omits details on invocation patterns (e.g., call repeatedly until done) and error conditions, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Poll the status/result of an asynchronous firewall-config operation' with a concrete example (MDR threat-feed retrieval). This verb+resource+scope combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sophos_get_firewall_group which retrieve synchronous data.

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 instructs to 'Use the transactionId returned by the originating call,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It implies that this tool is for polling after an async operation, but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would push it to a 5.

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