ssh_fw_rule

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

No annotations are provided. The description hints at bypassing API issues but does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, idempotency, or error handling. Minimal behavioral context.

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 short sentence, to the point. However, it is too brief given the tool's complexity, bordering on underspecification rather than 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 tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to use the tool, what parameters are for, or what the result is.

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?

With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to any parameter. The schema has defaults but the description is silent on what each parameter controls.

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 action (create firewall rules) and the method (via SSH) with a reason (bypasses API issues). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fw_rules or mkfw_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?

The phrase 'bypasses API issues' implies usage when the API is problematic, but no explicit when/when-not or alternatives are given. It does not differentiate from siblings like mkfw_rule or set_fw_rule.

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