search_haproxy_backends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the prerequisite of HAProxy package installation, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose return behavior, pagination details, or any non-obvious side effects. The added context is minimal but relevant, and there is no contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a single prerequisite. Two sentences carry all necessary information without any filler or redundancy.

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?

With a full input schema and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core functionality and a key prerequisite. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling search tools, but the name and annotations cover much of the necessary context, making it reasonably complete.

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 100%, with each parameter (page, sort_by, page_size, search_term) having a description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search HAProxy backends with filtering and pagination', specifying the exact resource (HAProxy backends) and the operations (search with filters and pagination). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_haproxy_frontends and search_haproxy_files.

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 only usage guidance is the prerequisite that the HAProxy package must be installed on pfSense. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor exclusions or comparisons to sibling search tools. The name itself provides implicit differentiation, but no direct guidance is given.

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