opn_haproxy_get

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

Describes return format ('dict with the resource type as key containing all field values') and mentions included fields (SSL, tuning, persistence, linked resources). No annotation provided, but read behavior is implied; could mention idempotence or lack of side effects.

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?

Description is 7 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence provides value without 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?

Tool has two straightforward params and an output schema; description covers resource types and return format. Lacks mention of error handling or authentication, but context is sufficient for a get tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists resource types in text but does not explain the 'uuid' parameter or provide value constraints beyond the list. Adds some meaning but insufficient detail.

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?

Clearly states 'Get detailed configuration for a specific HAProxy resource' and lists resource types, distinguishing from sibling tools like add/delete/update/search/status.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to inspect all fields of a single resource before modifying it', providing clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly exclude other use cases.

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