list_firewalls

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the limited return set ('name, host, and verify_ssl') and makes a safety-relevant guarantee that 'API keys are never included.' This is useful, concrete transparency.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the read-only nature, states the action, defines the resource, and discloses the output fields. Every phrase adds value and no filler or redundant detail is present.

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 zero-parameter list tool, this description is complete: it explains what is listed, which fields are returned, and what is intentionally excluded. There is no output schema, so the explicit enumeration of return fields is especially valuable and sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters but reinforces that no inputs are required by framing the tool as a simple listing operation.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists configured firewall targets'. It further clarifies the purpose by noting these targets 'can be selected by name,' which distinguishes this list operation from the many get_* sibling tools that inspect firewall state or configuration.

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 phrase 'can be selected by name' clearly implies this tool is the way to discover available firewall target identifiers for later use in other operations. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say when not to use it, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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