get_target_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states the tool 'Get's and 'Shows' target lists and their contents, implying a safe read-only operation. It adds useful context about the data returned, though it does not delve into permissions or output format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get all target lists') and followed by a concise explanation of the content. No 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 zero-parameter getter without an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (domain lists, IP lists, rules) and the scope (configured on the Firewalla). It could be more explicit about the exact response structure, but it is sufficient for a basic list retrieval tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds context about what target lists are, but parameter semantics is trivially satisfied; baseline 4 is appropriate due to the 0-param rule.

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 gets all target lists, with the clarification that these are block/allow lists. It also specifies the content (custom domain lists, IP lists, associated rules), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on devices, alarms, or network stats.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: when the agent needs to see configured target lists. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's unique purpose is evident from the description and sibling context, making exclusions unnecessary.

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