Konfiguracja Nginx site

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds a use-case hint but no additional behavioral detail such as response format, auth, or failure behavior; there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a practical use case. There is no redundancy, and the description earns its place without bloat.

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 simple read-only lookup with annotations covering side effects and a schema covering both parameters, the description is largely complete. The only slight gap is no explicit statement about the return value format, but the resource ('konfiguracje Nginx') makes the expected output reasonably clear.

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%, so both parameters (org and site) are already documented in the schema. The tool description does not repeat or add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb, 'Pobiera' (fetches), and names the resource, 'konfiguracje Nginx dla site', clearly identifying the tool's function. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling update_nginx_config, but the read/fetch orientation is unambiguous.

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?

States a concrete use case: diagnosing redirects and headers ('przydatne przy diagnozowaniu przekierowan i naglowkow'). This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not spell out when not to use it or mention an alternative.

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