rule_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The '[READ]' prefix signals non-destructive intent, and 'Active' implies filtering on currently-tracked states, but the description doesn't explain pagination behavior, whether results are sorted (by size/packets?), what happens when 'top' exceeds available entries, or how 'target' selection affects scope. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is needed.

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 compact - a one-line summary plus a two-argument docstring. It front-loads the core purpose and delivers parameter explanations efficiently. No filler or redundancy. Slightly thin on usage context but appropriately concise for a simple read tool.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 optional params, no nested objects, no output schema). The description covers purpose and both parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description doesn't describe the return format (what fields make up a state entry), which could matter for an agent needing to interpret results. It is adequate for a read-only query tool but marginal for full operational completeness.

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 documenting the two parameters. It does explain both: 'top' is how many entries to return, and 'target' is the firewall target name (defaulting to whatever config default applies). However, missing detail on top's type/range constraints, what happens if target doesn't exist, and how the default target is determined. For 2 simple params with defaults, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 'Active pf state-table entries associated with rules (top-N)', using a specific verb-noun combo that makes clear this reads pf state-table entries filtered by rule association. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like states_table (which likely returns the raw state table without rule filtering) and rule_stats (which returns hit counts rather than state entries), though it doesn't explicitly name these differences.

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 a read-only usage pattern via '[READ]' prefix and the query nature of the tool. It provides basic context (active state table entries, rule-associated, top-N) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and doesn't contrast against siblings like states_table or top_talkers to help an agent choose between them.

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