waf_events_by_ip

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

With no annotations, the description reveals it is a read operation that returns specific event details. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but the behavior is straightforward for a query tool.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists output fields. Efficient and well-structured.

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 query tool with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the action and output. It covers the key information but could mention pagination or limits.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which already provides clear descriptions for ip, count, verbose, and since.

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 clearly states the verb 'drill into' and the resource 'events from a specific IP address'. It lists the output fields (timestamps, methods, URIs, HTTP codes, triggered rules), distinguishing it from sibling tools like waf_events_by_rule which filter by 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like waf_events_by_rule or waf_top_ips. The usage is implied from the description but lacks direct comparison or conditions.

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