bunny_get_waf_rules

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

The annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description needs little safety disclosure. It adds useful content scope ('including managed rulessets and custom rules') but no operational behavior such as response format, pagination, error conditions, or authorization needs. No contradiction with 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 tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and scope. The mention of managed vs. custom rules is valuable, not redundant, and there is no filler or duplicated schema information.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with strong annotations, this description is sufficient to invoke it correctly and understand the returned entity category. No output schema exists, so a bit more detail on response shape could have helped, but the simplicity of the operation keeps this gap minor.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single required parameter shield_zone_id with type and lower bound, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only restates that these rules belong to a shield zone, adding no new detail about how the parameter is interpreted or formatted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') targeting a clear resource ('WAF rules and profiles') scoped to a shield zone. It further clarifies the contents by naming managed rulessets and custom rules, making the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling management tools like bunny_manage_waf_custom_rule.

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?

It provides clear contextual framing: this is the read-oriented endpoint for all WAF rules on a shield zone, and the 'manage' siblings imply the alternative for modifications. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over bunny_manage_waf_custom_rule or when not to use it, leaving the routing to inference.

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