apache_vhosts

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

The "[READ]" prefix merely restates the readOnlyHint=true annotation, adding no new information. Nothing is said about what the "parsed mapping" contains, how parse failures or a missing Apache install are surfaced, or whether output is keyed by server name or file.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved by omitting content rather than by tight editing.

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 tool whose only parameter is undocumented and which has no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the target argument and roughly what the mapping looks like. Instead it supplies only a one-line purpose statement, leaving key invocation details 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?

The single optional parameter "target" has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a hostname, a config path, or a remote host selector. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ("Show") and resource ("Apache's parsed virtual-host mapping"), which is clearly distinct from siblings like apache_static_directives or apache_runtime_config. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus apache_config_includes, apache_runtime_config, or other Apache inspection tools, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., an Apache config being present on the target). The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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