csf_search_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It communicates a read-only search behavior via 'Search' and 'Shows', and identifies the exact underlying command 'csf -g'. It could disclose more about not-found behavior or output shape, but the output schema exists to cover return value structure.

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 short, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and command, and every sentence adds value. The Args line is slightly redundant with the schema but useful because the schema lacks semantic detail.

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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the target scope, the command, and the purpose. The main gap is the absence of when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance among the many related csf_* siblings.

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 must compensate. It does: 'ip: IPv4 or IPv6 address' adds format meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. The parameter is simple, so this is adequate, though it does not mention edge cases like CIDR notation.

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 ('Search'), the resource ('CSF/iptables/LFD'), the target (an IP), and the underlying command ('csf -g'). It also explains the point ('Shows why it is blocked'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling csf_ip_reason, which may overlap in purpose, so it loses one point.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for checking why an IP is blocked, but it never mentions sibling tools like csf_ip_reason or contrasts them with this search-based approach.

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