list_firewall_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature by saying 'List' and the conditional behavior based on group_id, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication needs, error handling, or pagination, though these are less critical for a simple list operation.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and with no wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors. It is sufficiently complete for the low complexity of the 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 schema already describes group_id as 'Optional firewall group _id', but the description adds meaning by clarifying the two modes: omit to list all, or provide to get a specific group. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter description.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('firewall groups'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_firewall_rules or list_wlan_groups. It also covers the secondary behavior of fetching a single group by ID, which adds precision.

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 usage: if you need firewall groups, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the many sibling list tools, explicit differentiation would have improved this dimension.

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