validate_waf_rule

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It merely states the tool validates syntactic correctness but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state), network calls, or success/failure behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 immediately conveys the tool's essence. It is front-loaded and contains 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects), the description is adequate but lacks information on return values, error handling, or whether validation is against a specific schema version. The lack of annotations leaves gaps.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a parameter description ('The YAML content of the WAF rule to validate'). The tool description adds 'syntactically correct' but does not elaborate on the parameter's format, length limits, or encoding. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage, but no added value.

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 'validate' and the specific resource 'CrowdSec WAF rule YAML', and specifies the scope 'syntactically correct'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lint_waf_rule' which may focus on style or best practices.

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 versus alternatives such as 'lint_waf_rule' or 'validate_scenario_yaml'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context where validation is appropriate.

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