fsv_waf_check

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the essential traits: passive (non-intrusive), a single request (low footprint), and an explicit authorization precondition tied to user confirmation. It does not mention logging/detectability or failure behavior, but the safety-relevant profile is conveyed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability, followed by the operational profile and the authorization instruction. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the authorization prerequisite — the main risk in invoking this tool — is covered. The only material gap is target format, which matters 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 must compensate. It explains the 'authorized' parameter well ('after the user confirms'), giving the semantic trigger for setting it. However, 'target' gets no format guidance (URL vs. hostname, scheme handling), leaving half the parameters under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('whether a target sits behind a WAF or CDN'), and enumerates concrete vendors so the agent knows exactly what signal it produces. No sibling tool in the list covers WAF/CDN fingerprinting, so it is clearly differentiated.

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?

Gives the key gating condition ('Pass authorized=true after the user confirms') and characterizes the call as 'Passive, single request,' which tells the agent when this is appropriate versus heavier tools like fsv_scan. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as fsv_quick_check, so no exclusion guidance.

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