WAF Rules

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with those. It adds the useful behavioral detail that only the latest report is consulted, not a user-selected report. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as empty-result behavior or pagination, but annotations lower the bar.

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?

A single clear sentence with no redundant filler. The core action, resource, and source are all front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately evident.

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 read-only annotations, fully self-documenting schema, and existing output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The 'latest report' scoping is stated explicitly, which is the main behavior an agent needs to know.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description itself does not add parameter-level meaning. All five parameters, including optional severity filtering and URL defaults, are already documented in the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('WAF rule findings'), and a precise source ('the latest Cloudeval WAF report'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like reports_waf, reports_show, rules_search, and rules_get by combining 'WAF' and 'latest report'.

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: if you need WAF rule findings from the most recent Cloudeval WAF report, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings such as reports_waf, rules_search, or reports_show, nor does it state any exclusions.

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