panorama_list_active_plans

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value comes from concrete behavioral exclusions: no plan/candidate hashes, XPath values, mutation XML, or secret slot names. This meaningfully shapes expectations beyond the annotation; minor lack of return-structure detail keeps it from a 5.

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 with no filler: the READ-ONLY marker and core action are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a precise safety boundary. Every clause 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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong read-only annotations, the description adequately defines scope, safety, and exclusions. The main ambiguity is the exact shape of the returned 'lifecycle metadata,' but the safe/unsafe boundary is clear enough for correct invocation.

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 schema covers the single optional 'firewall' parameter at 100%, including when it is required. The description does not add parameter-level information, but the schema already carries that burden, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('safe lifecycle metadata for active Panorama provisioning plans'), and it explicitly enumerates what it never returns (plan/candidate hashes, XPath values, mutation XML, secret slot names). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling plan/candidate mutation and status tools.

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 read-only framing plus the 'never returns' clause communicates a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context for agents seeking safe metadata. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for retrieving full plan or candidate details, so it stops short of full explicit routing.

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