nat_one_to_one

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The [READ] prefix explicitly disclaims mutation behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, whether mappings are sorted/filtered, pagination, or what 'normalized' means concretely. For a read tool, the [READ] prefix provides the core safety disclosure, earning a baseline score, but richer behavioral context is missing.

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 compact: one sentence declaring the purpose plus a short Args section. Every line earns its place, with the [READ] prefix and parameter guidance included. There is zero filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the core essentials: purpose, safety prefix, and parameter usage. No output schema exists, so return values aren't documented, and 'normalized' output format isn't explained. Given the tool's low complexity, this is adequate but leaves the output format ambiguity unresolved. The '[READ]' prefix plus normalized indicator gives reasonable baseline completeness for a read-only list tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'target' parameter. It does explain 'Firewall target name from config; omit for the default,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema (anyOf string/null with default null). However, it doesn't clarify what the default target refers to, where config names come from, or how to list available targets. One parameter means the description should fully document it; it partially does.

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] clearly marking the operation type and states '1:1 NAT mappings (external ↔ internal), normalized.' This makes the purpose clear with a specific verb plus resource (NAT mappings). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the 1:1 variant, which contrasts with nat_port_forwards and nat_outbound. However, it doesn't explicitly explain how 1:1 differs from the other NAT sibling 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 description implies this tool is for reading 1:1 NAT mappings, and the sibling names (nat_port_forwards, nat_outbound) suggest categorization by NAT type, but the description doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the alternatives. There is minimal guidance on the 'target' parameter usage ('from config; omit for the default'). No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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