Search HTB Challenges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: search is client-side over a cached list, results are relevance-ranked, and matches span six fields. This is a real behavioral disclosure, not a restatement.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and mechanism, then parameters, then the follow-up workflow. No filler.

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?

For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers mechanism, scope, matching fields, and the next step. It stops short of explaining result shape or ranking tie-breaking, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by enumerating which fields the query matches (id, name, category, difficulty, points, state) and clarifying the `all` flag's effect on retired challenges, information the schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (challenge lists) with scope qualifiers (cached, ranked by relevance). It clearly differentiates from siblings htb_challenge_list and htb_challenge_info by naming info as the follow-up step.

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?

Gives explicit guidance on the `all` flag and a clear next-step workflow ('Follow up with htb_challenge_info on a candidate'). It does not, however, contrast itself against htb_challenge_list, so the agent must infer the split between listing and searching.

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