proxy_guidance

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, and it excels. It explicitly states side effects (writes nothing, starts no listener), what it returns (composed command plus caveat), and important limitations like the proxy being a 'CHOKEPOINT, not an enforcement boundary' and the fact that responses stream uninspected. It also explains the parsing behavior for unparseable bodies.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured, front-loading with '[READ]' and then providing essential caveats and parameter details. Every sentence adds valuable context, though it could be tightened by moving some caveats to a separate section. It remains appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 description is complete for an informational tool. It covers the tool's action (composing a command), its non-action (no writes or listener), and its output (the caveat), along with critical behavioral specifics. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains what the user gets. It also addresses proxy limitations and request handling, making it self-contained.

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 no property descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does so with brief but meaningful explanations for each parameter: listen_host ('Address the proxy would bind'), listen_port ('Port the proxy would bind'), and target ('Runtime target from config; omit for the default'). This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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's purpose: it explains how to run the transparent capture proxy and what it does not guarantee, by composing a command and returning a caveat. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it 'WRITES NOTHING and starts no listener,' making it a guidance/informational tool rather than an action tool.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated. The '[READ]' prefix and the note that it writes nothing indicate this is for guidance, not for execution, but there is no direct 'use this when' or 'use X instead' guidance. The description provides context but lacks explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references.

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