get_haproxy_settings

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose any additional traits such as whether the settings are cached, what specific settings are returned, or any authentication requirements. The output schema may cover return values, but the description itself contributes nothing beyond the tool name.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and subject. It contains no fluff or redundant words, achieving high efficiency and front-loading.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, output schema present), the description is complete. It accurately identifies the resource and operation, and the output schema covers return value details, so no further context is required. The presence of a output schema means the description need not explain return values.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information to add. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly needs no param explanations. The simple 'Get the current HAProxy service settings' suffices.

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 names the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current HAProxy service settings', identifying it as a read operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling getters like get_gateway_status or get_webgui_settings by explicitly targeting HAProxy settings, and from HAProxy mutation tools like update_haproxy_settings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it pairs with update_haproxy_settings for modifications or that other HAProxy read tools (e.g., search_haproxy_frontends) exist. There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool reference.

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