diagnose_blocked_traffic

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

Annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already establish the safety profile. The description adds sequential behavioral detail (log search, rule lookup, alias check, suggestion generation) without contradicting the read-only nature. It stops short of stating potential limitations (e.g., log availability or performance).

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?

Two well-structured sentences: the first clearly states the high-level purpose, the second lists concrete actions. No filler or redundant wording; every phrase earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema and safety annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and method. It mentions the reliance on firewall logs and the suggestion feature, though it could be more explicit about prerequisites or how it differs from the closely named sibling analyze_blocked_traffic.

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 reinforces that source_ip is the primary parameter and others are optional filters, but it adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 specifies the verb 'diagnose' and resource 'blocked traffic,' and elaborates the diagnostic process (searching logs, finding matching block/reject rules, checking alias memberships, suggesting fixes). This clearly distinguishes it from simpler sibling tools like get_firewall_log or search_logs_by_ip.

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 states this is a 'comprehensive analysis' of why traffic is blocked, conveying appropriate use for thorough investigation. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough to imply when this aggregated diagnostic is needed.

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