panorama_list_active_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral constraints beyond that, explicitly stating it 'never returns snapshot XPath values, restore XML, or secret metadata,' which helps an agent understand the safety scope of the returned data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the READ-ONLY signal, and zero filler. Every sentence contributes either to scope or to behavioral safety transparency.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description is largely complete. It gives a high-level view of the return content ('safe target labels/hashes') and explicitly notes what is excluded, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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% for the single optional 'firewall' parameter, which already explains when it is required and what it references. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'Lists safe lifecycle metadata for active Panorama candidate operations.' This is clear and identifies an object type distinct from sibling tools like panorama_list_active_plans or panorama_get_operation_status, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to list active Panorama candidate operation metadata. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as panorama_list_active_plans or panorama_get_operation_status.

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