get_features

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only 'List' operation but doesn't explicitly state that no state changes occur, nor does it clarify whether vulnerability scans are triggered or only existing results are returned. The description focuses on content scope but omits any operational behavior.

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 packs all relevant content into a compact list. Every element contributes to the purpose, with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with 'List' and immediately enumerates the distinct categories.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a listing tool. It covers the main data types returned, but could be enhanced by describing the response structure or including examples. However, the enumeration is sufficient for an agent to know what information is available.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; it's a list-all-style tool. This is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: Firewalla features, global policy, per-network policy overrides, DoH status, and vulnerability scan status. This enumeration uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_info or get_network_status, providing a clear and specific purpose.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it lists without context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate whether this is the go-to for security status or if some data is available elsewhere.

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