list_waf_rules_tool

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ("List"), the zone-scoping, the parameter exclusivity rule, and the shape of the returned data (expressions, actions, status). It says nothing about pagination, permissions, or rate limits, which are the remaining gaps for a list operation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line before the Args/Returns details, and the whole thing is short. The Args block partially restates the schema's property names, which is mild redundancy, but it adds value since the schema has no descriptions.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and mutual exclusivity adequately. The only left-open items are error behavior when both/neither zone argument is given and whether results are paginated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents both parameters with concrete format hints (32-character hex ID, domain like example.com) and states that they are mutually exclusive. It stops short of saying what happens if both or neither are provided.

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?

States a specific verb ("List"), a specific resource ("WAF custom rules"), and the scope ("for a zone"). The resource is narrow enough to separate it from the other list_* siblings (page rules, header rules, DNS records) without ambiguity.

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?

It gives a real usage constraint — "Provide either zone_id or zone_name, not both" — but never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when listing is the wrong operation. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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