list_waf_rules_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions the mutual exclusivity of parameters, which is a behavioral constraint, but it does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, list behavior, or potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if neither is provided). This leaves gaps in 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 long, concise, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place—the first states the action, the second provides a critical usage instruction. No fluff or redundancy.

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 relative simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, and output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. The mutual exclusion rule is covered, and the output schema likely documents return values. However, it misses a note on whether this returns a list or pagination, which could be inferred from the output schema. Overall, adequate for a list tool without annotations.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the mutual exclusivity rule (provide either zone_id or zone_name), which is not in the schema. This is a meaningful addition that enhances parameter semantics.

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 it lists all WAF custom rules for a zone, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_waf_rule_tool and delete_waf_rule_tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the similar list_response_header_rules_tool or list_request_header_rules_tool, but the resource 'WAF custom rules' is specific enough.

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 explicitly instructs to provide either zone_id or zone_name, not both, which is crucial for correct invocation. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus other list tools or mention prerequisites like zone existence. This provides clear invocation constraints but lacks broader usage context.

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