test_nginx_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself communicates that this tool only tests syntax and does not reload the server, which implies a safe read-only validation operation. It also discloses what the return value contains (validity, exit code, and error messages). This is sufficient behavioral transparency for this tool type.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the return-value note is directly relevant to an agent calling the tool.

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 and a return format described inline, the description is complete. An agent knows exactly what action will be taken and what kind of response to expect.

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%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and nothing more is needed here.

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 clearly states the tool tests Nginx configuration for syntax errors using `nginx -t` and explicitly says it does not reload. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. It is distinctive enough against the sibling tools, none of which appear to focus on nginx configuration..

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 makes the tool's purpose and non-destructive behavior explicit, so an agent can decide to use it when validating Nginx configuration syntax. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but no sibling appears to compete directly.

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