apache_config_includes

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so '[READ]' is redundant. The one piece of added value is 'bounded output', which warns that results may be truncated, but it doesn't say what the bound is, why truncation happens, or what the agent should do about it.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence with the key scope front-loaded and no filler. The '[READ]' prefix is minor duplication of the annotation but costs almost nothing.

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?

With no output schema and an undocumented optional parameter, the description needs to do more than one line. An agent still cannot tell what 'target' accepts or what the returned tree looks like or how it is bounded before calling the 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?

There is one parameter ('target') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — and it says nothing about what a target is (host, container, config path, site?). This is a clear gap the description fails to compensate for.

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 ('Show') and resource ('Apache's parsed config include tree'), which is distinguishable from siblings like apache_static_directives or apache_config_check. It lacks any explicit comparison to those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when an agent should prefer apache_config_check or apache_static_directives instead. The agent must infer the use case purely from the nouns in the sentence.

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