firewall_check_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool checks safety but doesn't disclose what 'safe' means, potential side effects (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs), or behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive. The reference to 'Same as firewall_check' is vague and doesn't add concrete behavioral details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated; the 'Same as firewall_check' is somewhat vague and doesn't fully earn its place. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description provides basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks details on safety criteria, error handling, or output specifics. It's minimally adequate for a simple check tool but has clear gaps in behavioral and parameter context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'code' as the code to check and 'language' as the programming language with a default, which clarifies beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify allowed languages, code format constraints, or other parameter details, leaving gaps in documentation.

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 checks if a code string is safe, specifying it works without requiring a file. It distinguishes from siblings like firewall_check (which likely requires a file) by emphasizing the string-based approach. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other safety-related siblings like firewall_blacklist or firewall_list_patterns.

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 implies usage when you have code as a string rather than a file, suggesting an alternative to file-based checking. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus other safety tools like firewall_blacklist or firewall_system_check, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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