net_proxy_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by specifying that it reads registry data and environment variables, distinguishes three proxy states, and flags a disabled-but-leftover registry value. It stops short of explicitly stating 'read-only' or noting the absence of side effects, though 'Show' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences and every clause earns its place: the first names the action and target, the second clarifies the output distinctions and a notable edge case. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what data source is inspected, which categories may be reported, and which special condition is highlighted, leaving no missing information needed to invoke the tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and the description has no parameter-documentation burden. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description contains no misleading or unnecessary parameter-related information.

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 names a specific action ('Show'), a specific resource ('Windows system proxy configuration (registry)') and the exact scope ('proxy environment variables'). It also defines output categories ('system proxy', 'TUN mode', 'no proxy'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly distinct from generic network diagnostics.

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 what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over siblings such as net_proxy_probe, net_diag, or net_doctor. There are no explicit use conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints, so the agent must infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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