add_redirect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only explains parameters and status codes, not side effects like whether redirect creation overwrites existing rules, requires server existence, or triggers reload. Minimal disclosure beyond parameter semantics.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second sentence concisely describes all parameters. Every word adds value.

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?

Covers purpose and key parameters, but lacks information on return values, prerequisites (e.g., does the server need to exist?), and how the redirect is applied. Gaps remain given the sibling tools and no output schema.

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 carries the burden. It explains from_host, to_url, and status_code with examples and allowed values. However, server_name is left undocumented, so not all parameters are covered.

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?

Description starts with 'Add an HTTP redirect route,' using a specific verb and resource. The tool name and description clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like add_reverse_proxy_route and add_static_file_server.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., when a redirect vs reverse proxy is appropriate). The description implies usage for redirects but provides no exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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