get_service_objects

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the config path ('/config/.../vsys/entry/service') and emphasizing the read-only nature, giving an agent useful context about what is being accessed.

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 short sentences with no filler. The safety prefix and core purpose are front-loaded, and the config path is a useful addition that 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by briefly noting that this returns service objects as opposed to service groups, but nothing critical is missing for making the call.

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 sole parameter 'firewall' has full schema description coverage, including 'Required when multiple firewalls are configured; optional otherwise.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema covers 100% of the parameter meaning, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieves'), a clear resource ('all service objects'), and clarifies the domain with 'port/protocol definitions'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_service_groups and get_address_objects by object type and scope.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the full list of service objects from the firewall. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternative or related tools such as get_service_groups, nor does it state when not to use it.

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