fail2ban_jail_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Get status' correctly indicates a read operation with no side effects. However, no further behavioral info (e.g., permissions, dependencies) is given. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Single sentence with immediate purpose, no filler. Front-loaded verb and target. Every word earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists (likely defines return fields), so description needn't detail output. One optional parameter with default covers common usage. Missing error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a simple status tool, this is mostly complete.

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 0% (no description in schema), so description must compensate. It adds examples ('e.g., opensips, opensips-auth') which give context for the 'jail' parameter, but doesn't explain its purpose or accepted values. Baseline 3 due to low coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Get status of a specific fail2ban jail' with verb 'Get' and resource 'status of a specific fail2ban jail'. Distinguishes from the sibling fail2ban_status by targeting individual jails, and provides concrete examples (opensips, opensips-auth).

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?

Description implies usage for specific jail status but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like fail2ban_status (for overall status) or fail2ban_ban_ip. No when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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