get_firewall_policy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read operation and 'single ... by ID' indicates cardinality, but the description does not explicitly state that this is non-mutating, nor does it mention behavior such as error handling or what happens when the policy does not exist. The added host/site format details give some useful behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and there is no repetition of schema fields or filler.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with an output schema already present, this description provides all necessary invocation details: what the tool does, how to resolve host and site identifiers, and where to find policy_id. No critical operational context appears to be missing given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: host (console name, ID, or composite ID MAC:numericId), site (name or ID), and policy_id with a source instruction to use list_firewall_policies. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare string type declarations in the schema.

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 ('firewall policy'), and a specific retrieval scope ('single ... by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_firewall_policies, which would be the obvious sibling for fetching multiple policies.

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 the appropriate use case: retrieving one specific policy when you already have its ID. It also provides a concrete prerequisite workflow by telling the agent to obtain policy_id from list_firewall_policies. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives, but the single-by-ID framing gives clear contextual guidance.

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