get_firewall_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format and mentions error messages, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or any authentication requirements. It is moderately transparent.

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 well-structured with clear sections: description, Args, Returns, Example. It is concise with no unnecessary words, and the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 presence of an output schema (as noted in context), the description covers return values and error handling. It includes an example. However, it does not mention behavior when the policy does not exist, which is a minor gap for completeness.

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 0%, and the description adds meaning by listing parameters with brief descriptions in the Args section. It also provides an example with concrete values, making the parameter usage clear.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific firewall policy.' It clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (firewall policy), and specificity (by adom, package, policyid). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_firewall_policies' and 'search_firewall_policies'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_firewall_policies' or 'search_firewall_policies'. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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