add_app_protocol_rule

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

There are no annotations to cover safety or behavior, so the description must carry the burden. It only implies a write operation by using 'add' but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether duplicates are handled. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 short phrase, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks any structure or front-loaded information that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about expected behavior, return values, or how this rule integrates with protocol control.

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 input schema has 8 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description mentions none of them. It does nothing to clarify the meaning of 'action', 'prio', 'week', or other parameters, leaving the agent to guess from names alone.

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 '添加应用协议控制规则' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (application protocol control rule). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like add_acl_rule or add_port_mapping, though it lacks details on what the rule contains.

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 for when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description is a standalone phrase without any context for usage decisions.

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