proxy_handshake

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It states it activates servers but doesn't reveal side effects (e.g., whether it deactivates existing servers, requires network, is destructive, or idempotent). This is insufficient for a potentially state-changing tool.

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 with a brief introductory sentence and a parameter list. However, it could be more structured with clearer separation of purpose from args, and front-loading the key behavior.

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?

Given the complexity of activating multiple servers and the presence of many sibling tools, the description lacks prerequisites, error handling, and limitations (e.g., network dependency, no-match behavior). The output schema exists but isn't leveraged. More context is needed for safe use.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description explains each parameter's purpose and optionality (e.g., tech_stack for languages, task_description for free-text). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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's function: sending project context to activate relevant MCP servers and returning a summary. This is distinct from siblings like proxy_activate_server (manual activation) and proxy_list_* (listing only).

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. While the purpose implies it's for initial context-based activation, it doesn't mention scenarios where manual activation is preferred or if it should be avoided when specific servers are needed.

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