get_report_queries_asset_iptables_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the HTTP method GET, which implies read-only, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like required authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what data is returned. The description is minimal and doesn't add significant context beyond the endpoint.

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 very brief, with one sentence that conveys the essential call pattern. It is front-loaded with the action and endpoint. However, it is under-specified, so brevity is achieved at the cost of completeness.

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 has an output schema, so return values aren't required in the descriptionutation. However, with no annotations Echo and a 0% schema coverage, the description needs to compensate heavily but doesn't. There is no information about required headers, path parameter format, query parameter names, or expected output structure. An agent would likely struggle to use this tool correctly.

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%, and the description only mentions 'route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers.' It does not explain what these parameters mean or provide examples. The schema parameters are generic (body, query, headers, path_params) with no property details, so the description's minimal guidance is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct call.

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 the tool retrieves asset iptables rules via a specific endpoint and lists where to supply parameters. It clearly identifies the resource and verb. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_report_queries_asset_firewall_rules or get_report_queries_ufw_firewall_rules, though the name itself is somewhat distinctive. The endpoint is mentioned, which adds specificity.

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 gives general instructions on where to put parameters but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or which sibling tools to consider. For agents, the context is insufficient to decide between this and similar report queries.

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