get_firewall_zone_proxy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about host formats and the need to first list zones, but it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or explicitly confirm a read-only lookup. The verb 'get' implies a non-mutating operation, but the absence of explicit behavioral detail is a moderate gap.

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 with the core operation, followed by a clearly labeled parameter block. It uses REQUIRED to highlight the key constraint and provides all necessary formatting details in a scannable structure. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. The description handles all parameters and the non-obvious prerequisite of listing zones first. It could additionally state what happens on invalid IDs or explicitly route the 'list all zones' case to the sibling tool, but for a simple get-by-ID operation the current level is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate for parameter meaning. It explains host formats (console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId), site name or ID, and exactly how to source zone_id from the sibling list tool. This fully resolves the ambiguity that would otherwise exist in the bare string parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Get a single firewall zone by ID via connector proxy.' This clearly distinguishes it from list_firewall_zones_proxy (plural/all), create/update/delete siblings, and other firewall tools. An agent can immediately understand the operation and resource.

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 tells the agent that zone_id is required and explains how to obtain it from list_firewall_zones_proxy, creating a clear prerequisite workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with create/update/delete, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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