prepare_waf_pr

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It vaguely mentions 'adding' files to a local clone, but does not disclose side effects like file system writes, branch creation, or potential errors. The lack of concrete behavioral details leaves the agent uncertain about what the tool actually does.

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 of 22 words is concise and direct. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points that could improve readability for such a multi-parameter tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain prerequisites (e.g., hub_dir must be a valid git repo), what happens after file addition, and what the tool returns. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to use it safely, especially as a write operation.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'prepare' and the resource 'pull request in a local clone of the CrowdSec hub repository', specifying it adds WAF rule and test files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_waf_rule which only generate content.

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 after generating rule and tests, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool vs alternatives like validate_waf_rule or deploy_waf_rule. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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