get_network_rules_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is a 'convenience wrapper' and provides 'overview statistics and counts,' but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, its performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get overview statistics and counts of network rules by category (convenience wrapper).' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a helpful qualifier. There's no wasted text, making it highly concise 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output, or sibling differentiation. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what the summary includes would improve completeness, but it's not entirely incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('active_only' and 'rule_type'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage tips. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get overview statistics and counts of network rules by category.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('network rules'), and adds context about being a 'convenience wrapper.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_network_rules' or 'get_rule_trends,' which slightly limits clarity.

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 implies usage by mentioning it's a 'convenience wrapper,' suggesting it's for quick summaries rather than detailed data. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_network_rules' or 'get_rule_trends,' and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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