check_proxy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output (exit IP and location) but fails to disclose behavioral details such as whether the proxy is actually used to make a request, any side effects, error handling, or performance implications. The description is too minimal to be transparent.

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 a single sentence, efficiently conveying the core purpose. There is no filler or repetition. While it could benefit from additional structure, it is concise.

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 tool has 6 parameters with no output schema or annotations. The description only mentions the return value (exit IP and location) but not the format or behavior for different protocols (http, https, socks5). It fails to address error cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 parameters are individually described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain how parameters relate (e.g., connectionString vs. host/port/username/password). Given high coverage, a 3 (baseline) is appropriate.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'proxy connection', and specifies the output: 'exit IP and location'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_rotating_proxy_connection' and 'list_static_proxies', which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'check_proxy', 'create_rotating_proxy_connection', and 'list_static_proxies', the description could have clarified the appropriate scenario (e.g., testing a specific proxy vs. managing proxy lists), but it does not.

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