security_proxy_test_single

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. Description elaborates that it makes outbound connections, measures live network state, varies between calls, and is rate-limited. This adds useful context beyond annotations, though it could mention idempotence explicitly.

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?

Single paragraph efficiently covers purpose, functionality, usage guidelines, and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (network testing, live results, rate limits, CAPTCHA), the description addresses all key aspects: what it does, how to use it, limitations, and alternative tools. Output schema existence is noted but not needed.

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 defines 2 parameters with full descriptions. Description adds value by linking proxy parameter to security_proxy_parse and clarifying optional originalIp defaults. No contradictions.

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 tests a single proxy synchronously, returning full results. It specifies measured attributes (reachability, speed, anonymity, etc.) and differentiates from sibling tools like security_proxy_test, security_proxy_test_stream, and security_proxy_parse.

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?

Explicitly advises to use security_proxy_parse first, and contrasts this tool with batch and streaming alternatives. Also mentions CAPTCHA and rate limits, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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