get_firewall_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only fetch and explains accepted identifier formats, which is useful. It does not disclose possible error cases, response shape, or whether the group includes nested rules, but for a simple getter this is acceptable though not exhaustive.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by terse parameter clarifications. There is no redundant wording, filler, or repetition of schema information.

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 three-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the core action and all parameter meanings. It could additionally state what the response contains or that a missing group returns an error, but the current information is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly in most situations.

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 provides only bare string types with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining host as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)', site as 'site name or ID', and group_id as 'firewall group ID'. All three parameters are given meaningful semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single firewall group'), and the retrieval key ('by ID'). The word 'single' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_firewall_groups' without requiring schema inspection.

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 usage context is implied: if you know a firewall group's ID, call this tool. However, it does not explicitly say to use list_firewall_groups first to discover group IDs, nor does it mention when not to use this tool. The guidance is present but not explicit about alternatives.

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