opn_haproxy_search

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

With no annotations, the description provides significant behavioral info: it notes pagination, lists resource type fields, and states return format ('dict with rows and rowCount'). However, it doesn't explain search semantics (e.g., exact match vs substring) or pagination details (e.g., offset or cursor).

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 well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, followed by a bullet list of resource types with key fields, and a return format statement. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 complexity (multiple resource types) and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks search behavior details (e.g., how the 'search' parameter works) and pagination mechanics (e.g., page size limits or pagination tokens). The return format is described, but crucial usage context is missing.

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 thoroughly explains 'resource_type' by listing all values and key fields. However, 'search' and 'limit' are only mentioned by default value and type; search behavior and limit maximum are not described. This leaves gaps beyond the 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 clearly states 'Search HAProxy resources by type' and lists all resource types and their key fields. It differentiates from sibling tools like opn_haproxy_get, opn_haproxy_add, etc., by focusing on paginated search.

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 says 'Use this to list and search any HAProxy resource. All resource types use the same paginated search pattern.' This implies usage context but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., for single resource retrieval) or alternative tools.

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