opnsense_find_alias_references

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the API-first approach, the fallback to rule scanning when the API is unavailable, and that the output includes a 'source' field indicating which method was used. It also clearly states the fallback's coverage gap (filter rules only), which is important for the agent to assess reliability.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a fallback explanation, Args, Returns, and Examples. It is front-loaded with the main use case and does not waste words. The extra length is justified by the need to explain the fallback logic and limitations.

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's complexity (nested input, API fallback, coverage limitations, and JSON output schema), the description covers all important aspects: what it does, when to use it, what the fallback means, input parameters, and return format. The output schema is described in enough detail for an agent to interpret results, and the annotations cover safety.

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?

The input schema has a nested object with 'name' and 'response_format', but the top-level 'params' field lacks a description, so schema coverage is effectively 0%. The description compensates by listing both parameters, defining the response_format values, and explaining that 'json' is better for chaining values into another call, which adds practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('where an alias is referenced'), with a clear purpose ('so you know what would break if it changed'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like opnsense_get_alias_contents by focusing on references rather than the alias's own contents.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' examples for deletion and emptying scenarios. It also explains the fallback behavior and its limitations (filter rules only, not NAT or nested aliases), which implicitly tells the agent when not to rely on the result. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use in those cases.

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