opnsense_fw_drift_check

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It clearly states 'Read-only' and describes what is returned (rules not matching regex, empty descriptions). It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or exact output format, but for a simple audit tool it is transparent enough.

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 concise sentences. The first states the purpose, the second adds key details (return values, default regex, read-only). No unnecessary words; front-loaded with critical information.

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 simplicity (audit with two optional parameters), the description covers the main functionality, default behavior, and safety (read-only). It does not detail the output structure (no output schema), but for a checklist audit, this is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by stating the default regex and the purpose of checking descriptions, but does not add significantly beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses 'Audit firewall filter rules for description hygiene' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling firewall tools (add, delete, apply, etc.) by focusing on auditing description quality.

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 what the tool does and that it is read-only, but does not explicitly state when to use it over other firewall tools (e.g., before applying rule changes) or when to avoid it.

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