Retrieve the detailed usage guide for a specified firewall tool by providing its full name, so you can understand its inputs and invoke it correctly.
Get detailed usage guide for a specific tool
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_name | Yes | The full name of the tool to describe (as shown by list_tools) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a safe read-only retrieval, what kind of guide is returned, whether errors occur for unknown tools, or any other behavioral traits.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps in behavioral and contextual detail.
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 simple with one required parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain every return detail. Still, it lacks context about what the usage guide contains and how it relates to sibling tools like fw_list_tools.
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 100%, and the single tool_name parameter is well documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it merely says 'specific tool,' which aligns with the existing parameter documentation.
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 clear verb and resource: get a detailed usage guide for a specific tool. It implicitly contrasts with fw_list_tools by focusing on one named tool, but it does not explicitly name the sibling or clarify the exact distinction.
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?
Usage is implied: call this after identifying a tool via fw_list_tools to obtain its guide. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.