states_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the '[READ]' tag reinforces it, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the envelope shape, the truncation flag, and the default limit behavior, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

One-line purpose followed by a compact Args block and a single envelope sentence. Nothing is redundant and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description describes the return envelope keys and the meaning of 'truncated', so the agent knows what it will get back. For a two-parameter read tool this is complete.

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 carries the full burden for both parameters. It explains 'top' (count, default 100) and that 'target' is a firewall target name from config that can be omitted for the default, which fully compensates for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb+resource: reading active pf state-table entries, with the parenthetical clarifying these are tracked connections. It distinguishes the resource from siblings like rule_states and firewall_log, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 '[READ]' tag and 'currently tracked' phrasing imply this is a live snapshot, which is useful context for when to reach for it. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to rule_states, kill_states, or top_talkers, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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