pending_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and fully delivers. It discloses the read-only nature ('[READ]'), the certain vs uncertain flag distinction (certain blocks apply_changes, uncertain only warns), and the fallback behavior when no risky rule exists. It also exposes the internal limitation (no per-rule dirty flag over REST).

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?

Three tight paragraphs, each earning its place: purpose/behavior, the certain-vs-uncertain distinction, and the single parameter. Front-loaded with the core READ purpose and usage directive. Zero filler.

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?

Despite being a moderately complex tool (lockout risk semantics, certain/uncertain flags, aliases/interface-group edge cases), the description covers purpose, output semantics, limitations, and parameters. No output schema exists, so describing the certain flag and finding ordering ('ranked worst-first') compensates fully.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'target' parameter, which it does: 'Firewall target name from config; omit for the default.' This explains the parameter's purpose and default behavior, going meaningfully beyond the bare schema.

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 has a specific verb+resource ('reports whether committing the staged rules would cut the endpoint'), and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_rules, rule_detail, and apply_changes. The '[READ]' prefix plus the explicit relationship to apply_changes leaves zero ambiguity about purpose.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Run this BEFORE apply_changes' and explains what it does (reports lockout risk). It also distinguishes its behavior from a diff against running config, stating why — neither platform exposes a per-rule dirty flag over REST. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with rationale.

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