proxy_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (delay in ms), failure behavior (returns -1), timeout defaults, and the precondition that the proxy must be in a group's all-list. It does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or has no side effects, but for a latency test the key behaviors are covered, earning a 4.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter details, and return behavior. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the action, all parameters with defaults, return value, failure case, and a prerequisite. Sibling tools exist but the description adequately defines this tool's unique role without needing further elaboration.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: proxy (with the group all-list requirement), url (with default), and timeout_ms (with default). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults, fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 starts with 'Test latency (ms) for a single proxy,' which clearly identifies the action (test), the resource (latency for a proxy), and the scope (single proxy). This distinguishes it from sibling proxy_test_group, which tests a group, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool is for a single proxy, and mentions the proxy must match a group's all-list, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative proxy_test_group for group testing or state when not to use this tool. This is clear context without explicit exclusion, so a 4 is appropriate.

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