generate_waf_tests

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, whether it creates files, requires authentication, or has side effects. The phrase 'for producing' implies mutation but is vague.

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 is front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient with no extraneous words.

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?

The tool has 2 optional parameters and no output schema. The description partially addresses what is produced (config.yaml and adapted Nuclei templates) but does not explain the prompt itself nor the full return value. Given sibling tools, more detail would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter details but mentions outputs (config.yaml, Nuclei templates) which relate to the parameters, though not explicitly.

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 states the verb 'Get' and resource 'the WAF test generation prompt', and mentions outputs 'config.yaml and adapted Nuclei templates'. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose, though the phrase 'get the prompt' could be misinterpreted as retrieval rather than generation, and sibling differentiation is not explicit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like generate_waf_rule or run_waf_tests. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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