cf_list_super_bot_fight_mode_config

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

Without annotations, the description fully describes the behavior (reuses endpoint, projects fields) and details the return structure. It implies a read operation but could explicitly state safety. The clarity on output fields adds transparency.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 low parameter count and the description's coverage of the parameter and return values (matching output schema), the description is complete. It leaves no ambiguity for the agent.

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%, but the description's Args section adds meaning: '32-char Cloudflare zone ID' provides context beyond the type 'string'. For one parameter, this is sufficient.

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 explicitly states the tool gets the Super Bot Fight Mode configuration projection and distinguishes it from cf_get_bot_management_config by noting it projects only SBFM-relevant fields. The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource is clearly identified.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'convenient when the agent is specifically investigating bot-blocking behavior' and contrasts with cf_get_bot_management_config. This clearly indicates when to use this tool over its sibling.

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