manage_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains that 'stop' kills the process, that 'ui=true' launches mitmweb on port 8081 instead of headless mitmdump, and that upstream forwards traffic. However, it doesn't mention what happens if the process is already running or whether stopping is graceful.

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 with a purpose statement, WORKFLOW section, and Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the need to explain four parameters and integration options.

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?

The description covers workflow, parameters, and integration with Burp/mitmweb. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It is slightly incomplete regarding behavior when called repeatedly or error conditions, but for the scope of the tool it is highly complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description's 'Args' section fully explains each parameter: action values ('start'/'stop', no others), port default and requirement, ui behavior, and upstream usage. This adds far more meaning than the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Start or stop the mitmproxy background process.' It clearly identifies the tool's role as the proxy lifecycle manager, distinguishing it from sibling tools like proxy_status and get_traffic_summary.

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?

It explicitly states 'This is the FIRST tool you should call before any proxy/traffic operation' and provides a numbered workflow. It also covers when to use options like upstream for Burp and ui for web GUI, giving clear usage context.

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