waf_fp_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It specifies the filter on HTTP 2xx responses, which is key, but does not disclose data freshness, sorting, limits, or output format. The 'since' parameter from the schema is not mentioned, leaving behavioral gaps.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is front-loaded with the key action and context, though an additional sentence on typical usage could enhance structure without losing conciseness.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context to understand its role in WAF tuning. However, it lacks details on output format or interpretation, which a user would need to effectively use the results.

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 input schema covers the single parameter 'since' with a clear description and default. The tool's description adds no extra semantic meaning, but given full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing WAF rules that triggered on HTTP 2xx responses, which are likely false positives. The verb 'triggered' implies retrieval, and the resource is well-specified, distinguishing it from sibling tools like waf_events_by_rule or waf_top_rules.

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 states the tool is 'Critical for WAF tuning,' giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like waf_events_by_rule or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the specific focus on 2xx responses implicitly differentiates.

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