proxy_inspect_registry

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

The description labels the tool as 'Diagnostic tool', implying a read-only operation, but provides no further behavioral details such as authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. With no annotations, the description should carry the full burden of disclosure.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily digestible.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose adequately. However, for a diagnostic tool, additional context about usage frequency or impact would improve 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?

No parameters exist, so the description need not add parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies, and the description is consistent with the empty schema.

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 it's a diagnostic tool that exposes proxy state and server counts. It is specific (verb+resource) but does not differentiate from siblings like 'proxy_list_active_servers' or 'proxy_get_metrics', which have overlapping 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 other proxy tools. The description does not provide context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where alternatives would be more appropriate.

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