toggleProxy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '启用或禁用' (enable or disable) implies a state change operation, the description doesn't disclose what the proxy does, what gets affected, whether this requires special permissions, or what the expected behavior is. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise - a single phrase that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple toggle operation.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'whistle代理' (whistle proxy) actually does, what systems or traffic it affects, or what the expected outcome of toggling it would be. Given the complexity of proxy operations and the lack of structured data, the description should provide more context.

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% with the single parameter 'enabled' clearly documented as '是否启用代理' (whether to enable the proxy). The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high 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?

The description '启用或禁用whistle代理' clearly states the action (toggle/enable/disable) and the target resource (whistle proxy). It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, but doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'toggleHttpInterception' or 'toggleHttpsInterception' which also toggle proxy-related features.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple toggle-related sibling tools (toggleHttpInterception, toggleHttpsInterception, toggleHttp2, toggleMultiRuleMode), but the description doesn't explain when this specific proxy toggle should be used versus those other toggle operations.

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