Get WAF context

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only fetch operation, which is reasonable, but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or limitations (e.g., caching behavior). Adequate for a simple retrieval.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It is concise and wastes no words, though listing the covered items could be slightly more structured (e.g., bulleted).

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 lack of output schema, the description lists the categories of information returned (actions, expressions, etc.), which provides adequate context for a simple fetch. However, it does not specify the return format or any constraints (e.g., data source freshness).

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 has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but no parameters exist to clarify. Baseline 3 applies per guidelines.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'WAF context', and specifies the scope by listing the types of documentation covered: actions, expressions, fields, functions, operators, values. This distinguishes it from siblings like validation tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings are different (e.g., validation, CVE fetching), the description does not explain scenarios where fetching context is appropriate or required.

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