get_proxy_config_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool reads and parses config, and it names the specific config areas it inspects, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention prerequisites, failure behavior, or whether findings include severity or recommendations.

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, dense sentence with a colon-separated list of covered areas. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler, though the list is somewhat long and could be slightly more scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It does list the config areas and mentions 'with findings', giving an agent a reasonable sense of the return content. It does not describe the exact response structure or how findings are presented, but the coverage is adequate for a read-only summary tool.

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 100% and both parameters have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds context about what the config is parsed from ('the workload's ConfigMap') but does not add significant new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parses') and resource ('nginx config from the workload's ConfigMap') and enumerates the distinct aspects it covers (upstreams, locations, timeouts, rate limits, etc.). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_proxy_status or get_config.

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 intended use is implied by the description: call this when you need a parsed summary of nginx configuration from a workload's ConfigMap. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, or when to prefer a sibling like get_proxy_status or diagnose_service.

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