add_phj_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains parameter roles but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwrite existing rules, disruption to connections) or required permissions. The description lacks transparency about the operation's impact.

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 concise with two sentences plus parameter definitions, no superfluous content, and front-loaded purpose statement.

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 has 6 parameters and no annotations, the description explains the core idea and key parameters. It lacks details on prerequisites, default behavior, or output schema, but the output schema is not required to be described. The description is fairly complete for a straightforward creation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning for 4 of 6 parameters (ip_src, ip_dst, public_port, proxy_port), but 'name' and 'proto' are not explained. The enum for proto (tcp/udp) is not clarified, and the role of 'name' is unspecified.

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 'Add a porthijack rule' and explains the purpose of each parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_nfproxy_service by its specific functionality of rewriting traffic to a proxy.

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 implies usage ('Use this to plug your own proxy in front of a service') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like add_nfproxy_service or add_nfregex_service, nor does it provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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