get_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that only active rules are shown by default (though the disabled param exists), includes hit counts, and supports filtering. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or return structure, but for a read-only list tool, it provides adequate behavioral detail.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the primary function, and the second adds valuable details about rule types and filtering. No fluff.

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?

Description covers the main output (rules with hit counts), rule types, targets, and filtering. It does not mention the disabled parameter or return formatting, but with no output schema and only three optional params, it is reasonably complete for assessing what the tool does.

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% for the three parameters. The description adds context about filtering by type and target, but does not elaborate on the 'disabled' parameter, which is already described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles most parameter meaning.

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 firewall rules/policies and includes specific rule types (block, allow, route) and targets (devices, groups, networks, domains, ports). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_alarms or get_devices by focusing on firewall rules.

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 implies this is the tool for listing firewall rules and mentions filtering by type and target, giving clear context for use. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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