list_virtual_hosts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the return format (JSON string), the source paths (/etc/nginx/sites-enabled/ and conf.d/), and the informational scope. It doesn't explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free or describe error/failure behavior, so transparency is adequate but not complete.

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?

Two short sentences contain everything meaningful, with the primary action front-loaded and the return/source information compactly appended. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the source scope and return type. It could note permission requirements or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but given the simple inspection nature, the description is nearly complete.

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 accepts zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details for the description to add. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no argument documentation is needed.

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 (Inspect) and resource (active Nginx virtual hosts), plus relevant aspects like listening ports, SSL, and reverse proxy targets. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as check_ssl_certificates, get_open_ports, or test_nginx_config, so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

It implies usage whenever Nginx virtual host configuration details are needed, and it names the source paths inspected. However, it doesn't state when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention any exclusions, leaving some selection to inference.

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