opnsense_search_aliases

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals the crucial nuance that URL table/GeoIP aliases return configured feed URLs or country lists, not currently loaded addresses. It also documents response pagination (total, count, has_more, next_offset) and response formats, adding significant behavioral context.

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?

While relatively long, the description is tightly organized into Args, Returns, and Examples sections, with every sentence adding value. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the detailed sections are warranted given the complexity and the important distinction from sibling tools.

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?

The description covers the output schema, pagination behavior, parameter semantics, usage examples, and the critical differentiation from related tools. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, making it complete in context.

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 fully compensates by enumerating all parameters (search, alias_type, limit, offset, response_format) with their meanings and defaults. It also clarifies the difference between markdown and json output formats, giving practical guidance beyond the raw 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 opens with 'Search configured firewall aliases and their types, contents and descriptions' – a specific verb and resource that clearly defines the tool's scope. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling opnsense_get_alias_contents by clarifying the difference between configuration and live pf 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?

The description provides explicit examples for when to use the tool ('What aliases exist?', 'Show me the GeoIP aliases') and an explicit 'Don't use when' clause pointing to opnsense_get_alias_contents for live addresses. This directly addresses usage boundaries and alternatives.

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