start_socks5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a listener is bound on the teamserver host and returns a tunnel ID, but omits side effects (e.g., does it modify agent configuration?), authorization requirements, potential blocking behavior, or error conditions (e.g., port already in use).

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 concise at two sentences without redundancy. However, it could pack more value without increasing length significantly, e.g., mentioning the output format or common pitfalls.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and a complex operation (starting a proxy tunnel), the description is minimal. It does not explain the return value format (tunnel ID), error handling, or prerequisites like agent connectivity. The presence of an output schema is noted but not included, so the agent cannot rely on it for completeness.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. While 'agent_id', 'lhost', and 'lport' are somewhat self-explanatory, critical details like whether 'lhost' refers to the teamserver or agent interface, or the purpose of 'use_auth', 'socks_username', and 'socks_password' are left entirely to the agent's inference from the schema names.

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 starts a SOCKS5 proxy tunnel, specifying the verb 'start' and the resource 'SOCKS5 proxy tunnel'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'start_socks4' by specifying the protocol version. The action and outcome are well-defined.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'start_socks4' or other tunneling tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., agent must be online) or situations where this tool should not be used.

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