ecp_nginx_get_conf

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. It states it reads the config, which implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose what the response looks like, whether the config is returned as raw text or parsed, whether the domain must exist, or any error behavior. For a read tool, the lack of return format details is a notable gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation. It could add a bit more detail about the return value without becoming verbose, but as-is it is efficient.

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 with no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is thin. It tells the agent what the tool does but not what to expect in the response, how the domain_name should be formatted, or any prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist in nginx). Given the sibling ecp_nginx_set_conf exists, a note about read-only vs. write could improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. The description mentions 'for a domain' which maps to the domain_name parameter, but it does not add details like expected format (e.g., bare domain vs. with www) or whether it must be an exact match. The single parameter is simple, so the description provides minimal but adequate context.

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 'Read the raw nginx config for a domain' clearly states the action (read) and the resource (raw nginx config for a domain). It distinguishes itself from the sibling ecp_nginx_set_conf, which is the write counterpart, and from ecp_nginx_list_domains, which lists domains rather than reading a config. It could be slightly more explicit about the output being the config file content, but the verb and resource are specific enough.

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 implies usage: call this when you need to inspect the nginx configuration for a specific domain. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ecp_nginx_set_conf for modifying the config. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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