Validate a rule expression with tests (WAF or Smart Firewall)

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

The description explains return values and the difference between WAF and Smart Firewall, but is vague about 'mock data if none given'—it does not specify what mock data is used. No annotations exist, so the description should provide full transparency; this gap lowers the score.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, rule_type options, and return fields with no waste. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters (1 required, 1 nested object) and no output schema, the description lacks details on test object structure and mock data behavior. Return fields are listed, but completeness is hampered by missing parameter semantics.

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 description explains rule_type well (defaults, allowed values, field relevance) but provides no information about the test parameter structure, despite the schema having 0% coverage. The test parameter is essential for usage in testing scenarios, and its omission is a significant gap.

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 validates a Wirefilter rule expression and matches it against test data. It specifies the two rule_type schemes (WAF and Smart Firewall) and lists return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 sets clear usage context by distinguishing between rule types, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like validate_waf_expression (which likely lacks testing). The guidance is good but could be stronger.

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