list_firewall_policies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels. It reveals default drain behavior, the 'incomplete=true' flag on capped drains, the exact response shape ({data, totalCount}), how offset/limit override the default, and that filter is forwarded unchanged as the upstream query parameter. Nothing about its runtime behavior is hidden.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place. It opens with the core purpose, then sequentially details host/site, pagination defaults, output shape, filter semantics, and truncation behavior. No filler, no repetition, and the most important scoping details are front-loaded.

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 paginated list-and-filter tool with five parameters and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers required parameters, optional pagination, filter syntax, return format, and edge-case behavior (capped drain with incomplete=true). An agent could invoke this tool correctly without any additional context.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains every parameter: host (console name, ID, or composite ID), site (name or ID), limit/offset (manual pagination), and filter (server-side expression format with concrete examples and 'omitted when unset'). This goes well beyond simply re-stating 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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'List firewall policies for a site.' It precisely identifies both the object (firewall policies) and the required scope (site), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_firewall_rules and list_firewall_groups without ambiguity.

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 clearly implies its usage: when you need the list of firewall policies for a given host/site. It thoroughly explains the pagination and filtering semantics, giving the agent the context to choose this tool over simpler listing alternatives. It stops short of explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with specific siblings, but the naming and detail make the intended use unmistakable.

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