get_firewall_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with the 'READ-ONLY' label and adds the exact command executed ('show system info'), which is useful context. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a read-only informational command with no side effects, the disclosure is sufficient. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no fluff. The read-only marker is front-loaded, the purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the underlying CLI command is provided in the second. Every word 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?

This is a simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema. The description names the returned fields, the schema fully defines the optional target parameter, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 parameter is fully explained in the input schema: 'Target firewall name (from firewalls.json). Required when multiple firewalls are configured; optional otherwise.' The tool description itself adds no additional parameter detail, which maps to the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves system information ... from the PanOS firewall' and enumerates the exact fields (hostname, model, serial, software version). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_system_resources or get_config, and it adds the concrete command 'show system info' to remove any 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?

It gives clear context: use this tool when you need identifying system information from a PanOS firewall. The schema further documents when the single parameter is required ('Required when multiple firewalls are configured'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions compared with sibling read-only tools such as get_system_resources or list_firewalls, so it misses the fifth point.

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