gatekeeper_nginx_wizard_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by revealing that the tool is UI-oriented and that its result includes status, container hints, and certificate options. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the safety profile is consistent with the 'fetch' wording.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool as a wizard helper and the operation as fetching context. The parenthetical efficiently summarizes the expected fields without wasting words on redundant schema information.

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 one-parameter, read-only helper, the description is adequate but not complete: an agent can tell it fetches wizard context, but the exact return structure is vague and there is no output schema to fill the gap. The slug semantics are also left to inference, and the phrase 'status, container hints, certificate options' does not clarify the shape or types of the returned data.

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 carries the burden of explaining the 'slug' parameter, but it never mentions slug at all. The wording 'fetch project + nginx context' lets an agent infer that slug likely identifies a project, but no format, example, or value source is given. This is a meaningful gap for a required parameter.

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 and resource: 'fetch project + nginx context' and explicitly frames the tool as a 'Wizard helper' for a step-by-step UI. It also enumerates the content dimensions (status, container hints, certificate options), which separates it from mutating or validating nginx siblings. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from gatekeeper_nginx_validate, gatekeeper_nginx_enable, and similar tools.

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 'Wizard helper' framing implies when to use it—when driving the step-by-step UI—but the description never explicitly says when not to use it or which sibling to prefer instead. There is no exclusion such as 'for direct nginx status, use gatekeeper_nginx_status.' The usage context is clear but only implied, not stated.

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