search_haproxy_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the scope of files (certificates, error pages, Lua scripts), but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, sorting semantics, or that search_term performs a client-side filter. The description is consistent with annotations, 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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the verb and resource, followed by clarifying examples. No wasted words; it is efficiently front-loaded and easy to scan.

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, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could benefit from mentioning that it searches file metadata/names, but the examples and schema are sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents their purpose and defaults. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already present, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('HAProxy files'), supported by concrete examples of file types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_haproxy_frontends and search_haproxy_backends, which target different HAProxy entities.

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 implies usage for searching HAProxy file-related items, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_certificates or manage_haproxy_file. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the guidance remains implicit.

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