get_nginx_status

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

The read-only nature is disclosed both in the description and the readOnlyHint annotation, with no contradiction. The description adds value beyond the annotation by specifying the systemctl mechanism and the version-string output, which are not present in the annotation. No hidden side effects are omitted.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the 'Read-only' note reinforces safety without redundancy.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool with a defined output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient. It states the check performed, the mechanism, and the extra version output. There is no missing context that an agent would need to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameter meaning because there are none, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('report'), a specific resource (nginx service), and the exact output (active status and version string). It clearly distinguishes itself from mutation siblings like reload_nginx by framing this as a status query.

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 when you need to know whether nginx is active or its version, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used. No exclusion criteria or sibling routing is provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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