Fastly NGWAF MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists rules but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, paginated (implied by parameters but not described), requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination handling, return format, or error conditions, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a real-world context.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'corpName' default behavior in more detail or clarifying the 'type' enum values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and resource ('rules at corporation level'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_site_rules' or 'list_corps' beyond the 'corporation level' qualifier, which is somewhat implied but not explicit.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_site_rules' or 'get_corp_overview'. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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