net_proxy_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only inspection and the second sentence usefully clarifies that there is no system-wide proxy switch on Linux or macOS, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or output shape.

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 tight sentences with no wasted language. The core behavior is front-loaded and the environmental caveat follows immediately.

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, the description identifies the exact configuration sources and explains why environment variables are authoritative on Linux and macOS. It does not describe the return format, but the tool's simplicity and source specification make the definition largely 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.

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, 'Show', and a specific resource, 'proxy configuration', and scopes it to HTTP_PROXY / HTTPS_PROXY / ALL_PROXY / NO_PROXY. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling net_proxy_probe.

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 the source of the proxy configuration but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as net_proxy_probe. It notes the Linux/macOS environment-variable constraint, but that is contextual scope rather than usage routing.

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