Start a network fault proxy

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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: connections pass through until rules are armed, faults apply per host to whole connections, and HTTPS remains end to end. It does not describe the returned environment's structure in detail, but the key runtime behavior is disclosed.

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 three tightly written sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Each sentence contributes useful scope, usage sequencing, or behavioral detail, and there is no redundant repetition of annotations or schema constraints.

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 the tool's main behavior and its relationship to set_network_faults, which is the most important context. However, with no output schema, the returned environment is only mentioned vaguely, and the sole input parameter is not explained at all. For a startup tool with one optional parameter, those gaps leave it only minimally 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?

The schema has one optional parameter, port, with 0% description coverage. The description never explains what the port parameter controls, whether it has a default, or what happens if it is omitted or already in use. The schema only provides type and range constraints, so the parameter's meaning remains undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: starts a loopback HTTPS proxy for an app's own connections. It also scopes the proxy to SDKs, main processes, CLIs, or test runs, making it distinguishable from sibling tools that arm faults or stop the proxy.

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 gives clear usage context: start the app or tests with the returned environment. It also routes the agent to set_network_faults for arming rules and clarifies that connections pass until then. It does not explicitly cover when not to use this tool or when to call stop_network_faults, so it falls short of a full 5.

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