nyx_proxy_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses credential injection, rate limiting, audit logging, and forbidden header usage. Missing details on response format, error handling, or timeouts, but covers core behaviors well.

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 a single, dense paragraph that starts with the core purpose, then adds key features, supported services, and constraints. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 tool has 5 parameters (all described) and no output schema. The description lacks any mention of the response format, status codes, or error behavior, which is a significant gap for a proxy tool that returns downstream data.

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 coverage is 100% with thorough descriptions for all five parameters (body, headers, method, path, service_slug). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Forward') and resource ('HTTP request through NyxID'), details supported service types (cloud APIs, internal REST, localhost), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nyx_list_services and nyx_exchange_identity.

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 states when to use the tool (to make authenticated requests without holding credentials) and references a sibling (nyx_list_services) for enumerating services. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or alternatives for non-HTTP operations.

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