firewall_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It describes the multi-step process (parsing, normalizing, embedding, similarity checking), mentions the use of Ollama embeddings, and references blacklisted dangerous patterns. It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context for a security 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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a concise process overview, then clearly labeled parameter and return value sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 security-critical nature, single parameter, and comprehensive output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, process, parameter meaning, and the output schema fully documents return values. No annotations exist to supplement, but the description stands adequately on its own for this complexity level.

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 0% description coverage for its single parameter, but the description's 'Args' section clearly explains 'file_path: Path to the code file to check'. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema. The description doesn't specify format requirements or constraints, but provides the fundamental semantic understanding needed.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check if code is safe', 'parses', 'normalizes', 'embeds', 'checks similarity') and resources ('code', 'execution tools like rlm_exec'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on safety checking rather than blacklist management, pattern listing, or system status operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('check if code is safe to pass to execution tools like rlm_exec'), which implicitly suggests it should be used before executing untrusted code. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the many siblings, though the purpose differentiation is strong enough to guide selection.

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