suricata_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the inventory of configuration areas exposed, which functions more as a return-content hint than behavioral context; nothing is said about permissions, sensitivity, or whether it reflects live or persisted config.

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?

One short line with zero filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the field inventory. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument read 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description carries a light load and mostly suffices by naming the config areas returned. What is missing is disambiguation from suricata_status and a note that these are read-only settings rather than live state, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a parameter-free configuration read rather than hinting at filtering options.

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 is a noun-phrase inventory ('Suricata configuration: enabled, IPS mode, interfaces, active rulesets') rather than a verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer that it reads configuration. It does list the concrete config areas covered, which helps distinguish content, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling tools suricata_status and suricata_alert_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, and no exclusions. Given three Suricata-related siblings (suricata_status, suricata_alert_status), the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent guessing whether settings or status is the right call.

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