generate_nginx_vhost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('generate') without any details about what the tool actually does behaviorally—such as whether it creates a file, outputs text, requires permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. For a tool that likely produces configuration files, this lack of transparency is critical.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase in Russian—with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. For conciseness alone, it's optimal.

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 complexity (generating configuration files with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover behavior, parameters, usage, or output, making it inadequate for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (domain, root_path, php_version) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they represent, their formats, or how they influence the generated config. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Сгенерировать nginx-конфиг' (Generate nginx config) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'generate_nginx_vhost' in Russian. It specifies the verb 'generate' and resource 'nginx config', but lacks specificity about what type of nginx config (virtual host configuration) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_htaccess' or 'get_routing_config'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but overly vague.

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, context (e.g., for web server setup), or compare to sibling tools like 'generate_htaccess' or 'get_routing_config'. There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or what scenarios it's designed for.

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