proxy_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the return structure (name, type, current, node count) and explains type-specific behavior for Selector/URLTest versus Direct/Reject/Compatible groups. It stops short of describing potential side effects or error conditions, but for a list operation 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 well-structured and concise, starting with the primary action, then listing the return fields, and finally adding important type-specific behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without unnecessary fluff.

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 0-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the full response format, includes field meanings, and explains expected behavior for different group types, which is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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, giving a baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to provide parameter semantics since there are none, and the schema already reflects an empty object. No additional meaning is required.

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 lists all proxy groups with current selection and node count, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like provider_list and proxy_test_group by focusing on proxy groups and their metadata.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need an overview of proxy groups with their active selection and node counts. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or reference sibling tools, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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