get_address_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the config path it reads from and specifying the object types returned, but it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, response size, or handling when no address objects exist. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one compact, informative sentence plus a useful config path reference. It front-loads the core behavior and avoids unnecessary filler. The redundant '[READ-ONLY]' marker is minor and does not hurt clarity.

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 low-complexity, single-optional-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and schema covering params, the description is largely complete. It explains what is retrieved and where the data comes from. Since there is no output schema, slightly more detail about the return format would be ideal, but the core context is sufficient for an agent to call it safely.

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 100%, and the only parameter, firewall, is documented in the schema with guidance about when it is required. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieves all address objects') and the resource ('defined on the firewall'), and clarifies that address objects include IP addresses, ranges, and FQDNs. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_address_groups or add/delete address-object operations.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it compare against related siblings such as get_address_groups or get_config. The read-only label implies a safe listing operation, but no concrete selection criteria are provided.

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