proxy_overview

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, and the '[READ]' tag merely restates it. It does add value by disclosing what the summary aggregates (version, counts, up/down health), but says nothing about cost, freshness, or pagination behavior beyond that.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one dense sentence covering all three returned data groups, followed by a minimal Args block. Only waste is the '[READ]' tag, which duplicates the annotation.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what will be returned and how the lone argument behaves. Missing only minor details such as output shape or refresh behavior.

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 coverage is 0% — the single 'target' property has no description at all in the schema. The description compensates well by explaining that target comes from the config and that omitting it selects the default, which is the key semantic an agent needs.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('One-shot summary') and enumerates the exact contents returned: platform/version, route/service counts, and upstream up/down health. This aggregation scope implicitly separates it from the list_routes/list_services/list_upstreams siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only guidance is the parameter note 'omit for the default', which is actionable but addresses the argument rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives like version_info or the individual list tools. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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