manage_waf_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions start/stop and failure handling, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether destructive (stopping may have side effects), required permissions, or rate limits. The lack of such detail limits 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second provides fallback guidance. No unnecessary 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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, action, and error handling. It sufficiently equips an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could mention the expected outcome of 'start' (e.g., stack running) and 'stop' (stack stopped).

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema (e.g., 'mount into the stack' for rule_yaml). It does not provide additional format or constraints, so it meets the baseline.

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 verb 'start or stop' and the resource 'Docker-based CrowdSec AppSec test stack' with the purpose of exercising rules. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_scenario_stack which focuses on scenarios.

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 provides a clear instruction for failure handling ('prompt user to set up manually'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_waf_tests or validate_waf_rule. Usage context is implied but not comparative.

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