get_application_filters

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that the tool reads a specific config path: /config/.../vsys/entry/application-filter. This helps the agent understand the data source and hierarchical scope.

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: read-only marker, exact tool purpose, and config path in one efficient sentence. There is no filler or repetition of structured data.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it retrieves, why it is used, and where the data lives. It does not describe the return shape in detail, but that is a minor gap for such a focused getter.

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%, so the single optional 'firewall' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description itself does not repeat or expand on parameter semantics, but it does not need to because the schema already explains when the parameter is required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves application filters used for application-based policy rules.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_routing_table or get_zones. The read-only prefix and config path add further precision.

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 clear context for when the tool is relevant: when working with application-based policy rules and needing application filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose statement is sufficient for tool selection among the many sibling getters.

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