nyx_proxy_request

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses credential injection, rate limiting, audit logging, and supported service types. It does not detail the response format or error handling, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by capability examples and constraints. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should mention the response format (e.g., returns the downstream response). It also omits details like timeout limits or size constraints. Adequate for a proxy tool but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning: body encoding rules, header restrictions, path base URL prepending, and service slug enumeration via another tool. This exceeds the schema's descriptions.

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 forwards HTTP requests through NyxID to downstream services with credential injection. It lists supported service types (cloud APIs, internal endpoints, localhost) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nyx_list_services by referencing them for service enumeration.

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 explains when to use the tool (accessing downstream services) and includes explicit guidance to not set Authorization headers. It also references nyx_list_services for available service slugs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with nyx_exchange_identity or nyx_request_approval.

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