rule_states

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's main added value is the 'top-N' limiting behavior and the note that omitting target falls back to a default. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or what a returned state entry contains.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Args block is compact. The Args entries partially restate schema defaults, but nothing is bloated or buried.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, documenting both parameters and the defaulting behavior is largely sufficient. Only the ordering/selection logic of 'top' remains unstated.

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 carry the params, and it does: it explains top is a count with a default of 50 and that target is a firewall target name from config that may be omitted for the default. This adds real meaning beyond the bare integer/string 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 states a specific read action on a specific resource ('[READ] Active pf state-table entries associated with rules') and scopes it with 'top-N'. The phrase 'associated with rules' distinguishes it from the broader states_table sibling, though it never names that alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over states_table, rule_stats, or rule_detail, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The '[READ]' tag hints at safety but not selection criteria.

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