proxy_overview

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

The description labels the tool as '[READ]', explicitly signalling that it does not mutate state, which is useful given no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as potential performance costs, error behavior, or the format of the 'up/down health' data. The [READ] flag is the only clear behavioral disclosure.

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 bracketed [READ] tag, a one-line summary of the output, and a single-line argument explanation. It front-loads the core purpose and contains no wasted words. Structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (platform/version, counts, health). It does not explain error cases or detailed semantics of 'up/down health', but this is not essential for a summary tool with no output schema. The description is largely complete for its complexity.

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 only provides the parameter name 'target' with a default of null and no description. The description compensates by explaining 'target' as the 'Proxy target name from config' and notes the default behavior when omitted. This is helpful and goes beyond the schema, though it is minimal.

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 identifies the tool as a 'One-shot summary' of platform/version, route/service counts, and upstream health. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling list/detail tools, making its purpose immediately clear.

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 phrase 'One-shot summary' implies when to use it (a quick overview instead of calling multiple listing endpoints), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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