Proxies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds key context beyond the basic action by noting that proxies are 'rotating' and that each proxy object includes 'host' and 'port'. This gives the agent useful expectations about behavior and return structure. It does not describe error cases or rate limits, but the tool is simple, so this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a clear usage suggestion. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter types, the return format ('array', each with host and port), and when to use it. It does not specify the number of proxies or any limitations, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 100% coverage for its single required parameter 'type', which includes a description and enum values. The description also mentions the three types, but the schema already documents them. Thus, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves an array of proxies filtered by type, with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('proxies'). It also explicitly lists the supported types (http, socks4, socks5), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'usage_statistic', which presumably provides usage statistics rather than proxies.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when you need rotating proxies for web scraping, geo-unblocking, or anonymous networking.' It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given the sibling tool is unrelated and the context is clear, this is sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a safe read operation, and it explains the data returned (used and remaining requests). It does not mention authentication or error behavior, but for a simple getter this is adequately transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and results, the second gives the intended usage. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and why to use it, and is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details; it correctly focuses on the output and usage.

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 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource (current user's API rate limits) and what it includes (requests used and remaining). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_proxies, which is about proxies rather than quota.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use this to monitor proxy generation quota.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple read-only tool with no parameters.

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