Check proxy

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: 'May take up to a minute for slow proxies' and that it works with 'saved or not' proxies. This provides latency and scope hints beyond the structured annotations.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome, followed by a relevant caveat. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes 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?

The description covers the core purpose, return value summary, and a latency caveat, which is adequate for a simple tool. However, it lacks parameter explanations and does not differentiate from the sibling tool check_connection, which could be similarly used. Given no output schema, the return info is only high-level.

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 low (20%), only describing the port parameter. The description does not explain host, type, username, or password fields, nor does it compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The phrase 'saved or not' hints that parameters can be provided directly, but no field-level semantics are given.

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 ('test connectivity') with a clear resource ('a proxy') and distinguishes from siblings by noting 'saved or not' (works with ad-hoc proxies). It also specifies the return value ('detected exit IP and geo info'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to verify a proxy's connectivity and get its exit details, whether the proxy is saved or not. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide between this and other proxy-related tools like list_proxies or check_connection.

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