Waf Detect

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

The description reinforces the readOnly and destructive false annotations by stating that identifying the vendor stays passive and that sending bypass payloads requires separate approvals. This adds useful context beyond the annotations alone.

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 first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the second paragraph is verbose and contains awkward phrasing such as 'The vendor names this reports are what the exploit chain's bypass pass consumes.' The core message could be stated more concisely.

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?

The description mentions that the report contains vendor names and that bypass behavior is separate, but it does not fully describe the output schema beyond that. Given the output schema exists but is not detailed here, the description provides only partial context for what the agent should expect.

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 only parameter, target, has no schema description and the description merely implies it is a host. It does not clarify whether target should be a domain, IP, URL, or include a scheme/port, leaving the agent to guess the expected format.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: identify the WAF or protection layer in front of a host. However, a sibling tool named fingerprint_waf exists, and the description does not explicitly differentiate waf_detect from it, which creates some ambiguity.

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 explains why knowing the WAF matters and notes that bypass payloads are a separate, approval-gated activity. It does not, however, give explicit guidance on when to choose waf_detect over fingerprint_waf or other reconnaissance tools.

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