security_proxy_test_single

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses supported proxy types and testing capabilities (anonymity, speed, location) but omits side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or output format expectations. Partial but not comprehensive.

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 short but front-loads a 'Menu ID' that is irrelevant for an agent. It contains two sentences; the first is partly filler. Could be more concise and focused on actionable information.

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 (multiple proxy types, analysis features, nested parameters), the description lacks essential details about input formatting, output structure, and behavior. The reliance on describe_tool suggests incompleteness. No output schema exists, so the description should provide more 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage; parameters are only listed by name and type. The description does not explain the 'proxies' format (e.g., comma-separated, one per line) or the meaning of 'concurrency' and 'retryAttempts' in the options object. No added semantic value beyond the 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 the tool tests proxies with real-time analysis, anonymity detection, speed testing, and geographic location, supporting multiple protocols. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like security_proxy_test or security_proxy_test_stream, and 'single' in the name conflicts with the plural parameter 'proxies', creating slight ambiguity.

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 directs to use describe_tool for full guidance but provides no direct guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool over siblings.

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