haproxy_frontend_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all HAProxy frontends' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify details like output format (e.g., JSON array, table), pagination, error handling, or dependencies (e.g., requires HAProxy service running). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence ('List all HAProxy frontends') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, and no structural improvements are needed.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format) and usage context. For a read-only list tool, this might suffice, but the absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, which it doesn't.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'List all HAProxy frontends' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('HAProxy frontends'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'haproxy_frontend_create' and 'haproxy_frontend_delete' by specifying a read-only listing operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'haproxy_backend_list' or other list tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., HAProxy configuration), compare to other list tools (e.g., 'haproxy_backend_list'), or specify use cases (e.g., monitoring, troubleshooting). Without any contextual cues, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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