proxy_test_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: results are sorted by delay, failed probes show delay=-1 and are placed at the end. It does not explicitly mention whether the operation is read-only or if it triggers external network requests, but the testing nature is implied. This is above-average transparency for a network-testing tool.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear Args list and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. There is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, each parameter's meaning, return value structure, sorting behavior, and failure handling. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains all four parameters (group, url, timeout_ms, concurrency) with concise roles, and even highlights the concurrency default. This goes beyond the schema, which only provides titles and defaults. It does not mention the URL default, but the schema covers that, so the description adds sufficient value.

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 function: 'Test latency of every proxy in a group, sorted by delay (fastest first).' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxy_test, which likely targets a single proxy. The scope (every proxy in a group) is explicit.

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 implies usage context by specifying the action (test a group) and the inputs (group, url, timeout, concurrency). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the group-based scope is clear enough compared to siblings. A 4 is appropriate since the context is clear but without exclusions.

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