Fingerprint Waf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds valuable behavioral details: returns matches sorted by confidence, and an empty list means no signature reached threshold, explaining possible causes. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent interpret results.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then parameter clarifications, then return behavior. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 relatively simple tool with an output schema, the description covers inputs, return behavior, and edge cases (empty list). It explains the significance of body and the meaning of an empty result. It could mention that it is read-only (but annotations cover that) and could clarify the status_code parameter, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies 'headers' as a dict with an example and notes that 'body' should contain the block page. However, 'status_code' is only mentioned in the purpose line without any detail about its role or default behavior. Partial compensation.

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 identifies the WAF vendor from response headers, body, and status code. The verb and resource are specific, and the inputs are enumerated. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like waf_detect or waf_vendors, which may also deal with WAF detection or vendor lists.

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 provides guidance on when to pass the block page as body ('the markers there are often the only signal'), which is helpful. But it does not discuss when to prefer this tool over other WAF-related siblings or mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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