proxychains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output format ('the wrapped tool's normal output, plus proxy chain connection debug info') and notes that it 'forces' connections through proxies, implying network redirection. It does not mention potential failures (e.g., unreachable proxies) or that it modifies network traffic, but these are minor given the clarity of the core behavior.

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 sentences: the first states purpose and mechanism, the second gives usage guidance, and the third states output. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, includes a concrete example, and contains zero filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter wrapper with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, the config file dependency, and the output format. It could mention that it only works on TCP (already implied) or that it may require the proxy chain to be reachable, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a brief example for the 'command' parameter and clarifies that 'opts' can override the config, but these are largely redundant with the schema's own parameter descriptions. The description does not add substantial new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Proxy wrapper — forces any TCP-based tool's connections through a chain of proxies', which is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools (nmap, curl, etc.) – it is a wrapper, not a standalone scanner. It also states the config source and provides a concrete example ('proxychains nmap -sT target.com'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'route tools through a pivot host (after setting up chisel or SSH tunneling) or through Tor for anonymity.' It also implies when not to use it (only for TCP-based tools) and mentions the prerequisite of setting up a pivot host. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide when to invoke it.

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