Nginx Upstream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Status' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about how status is obtained, whether it requires special access, whether it contacts live servers, or what side effects might occur.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is a noun phrase with no verb and conveys almost no actionable information.

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?

Given the large sibling context and the existence of an output schema, a one-phrase description is inadequate. It does not clarify what 'upstream servers' means in this context, how the tool is parameterized, or how it relates to nginx_status and nginx_stub_status.

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 0%, and the sole 'params' parameter is an unconstrained object/null with no schema description. The description adds no meaning about parameters, filters, or selection of specific upstream groups.

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 'Статус upstream серверов' clearly identifies the resource (Nginx upstream servers) and the intent (status), so an agent can infer this is a status read tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate it from siblings like nginx_status or nginx_stub_status.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of nginx_status, nginx_stub_status, or any conditions that would select this tool over other Nginx-related commands.

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