timeweb_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 full burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'in the account' defines scope, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or response structure, leaving ambiguity about 'all' given the limit/offset parameters. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, concise sentence that communicates the essential purpose without redundancy or unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 list operation with zero required parameters and a fully-documented schema, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's function. While it does not describe return values or what a firewall group contains, the tool's simplicity and sibling context make this adequate. It could be richer but is not incomplete for the task.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including min/max for limit, enum for format, and offset semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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' with a clear resource 'firewall groups' and scope 'in the account', distinguishing it from sibling tools like timeweb_get_firewall_group (single group) and create/update/delete operations. It immediately conveys the action and scope, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 establishes clear context: this tool lists all firewall groups in the account. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like timeweb_get_firewall_group for a single group, nor does it mention pagination strategy or edge cases. The absence of exclusions makes it useful but not fully explicit.

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