Nginx Stub Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it performs an HTTP check, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether authentication is required, or what the response format looks like. It also does not mention any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. It is efficient with no filler, though it may be too terse to convey essential context. It is appropriately sized for a simple status check, but could benefit from a bit more detail.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks context on usage scenarios, especially given the existence of a sibling nginx_status that could cause confusion. It does not explain the output structure (though an output schema exists), nor does it mention any prerequisites or configuration. With no annotations and a generic parameter, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently select and use this tool over alternatives.

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 input schema has a single optional 'params' object with no documented properties and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what this parameter could be used for (e.g., specifying a custom URL or timeout), leaving the agent with no guidance on how to invoke the tool with parameters. Since the parameter is generic and optional, the description should clarify its purpose, but it does not.

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 verb 'HTTP-проверка' (HTTP check) and the resource 'stub_status', listing the metrics it returns (active connections, requests, reading/writing/waiting). This identifies the tool's function, but it does not differentiate it from the sibling tool nginx_status, which likely has overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus nginx_status or other status tools. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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