get_dfw_policy

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the '[READ]' prefix, reinforcing the read-only nature, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements or error conditions.

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 extremely concise: a one-line summary followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a get operation), the description adequately covers the purpose and parameters. It lacks output schema details, but 'full details' implies a rich response. Annotations and sibling tools provide additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains policy_id as 'Policy identifier (e.g. 'app-tier-policy')' and target as 'Optional NSX Manager target name from config,' adding valuable context beyond the schema's type information.

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 '[READ] Get full details of a single DFW security policy,' clearly specifying the action (get details), resource (DFW security policy), and scope (single). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dfw_policies, which lists all policies.

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 description explains when to use (to get details of a specific policy) and lists parameters. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, the purpose is clear enough given the context of sibling tools.

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