security_proxy_test_stream

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

Discloses outbound HTTP/HTTPS connections, live network state, variance between calls, rate limiting details, and SSE frame types (start, result, error, complete). Adds significant context beyond annotations.

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?

Structured with title, purpose, behavior, sibling differentiation, rate limits, and SSE format. Every sentence is informative and efficient, no wasted words.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, behavior, parameter details, rate limits, and output format (SSE types). Complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description explains the proxies parameter format (protocol://user:pass@host:port, defaults, skipping rules) and notes that options like concurrency and retryAttempts are accepted but not applied. Adds meaning over the 100% schema coverage.

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 tests proxy servers with a streaming SSE response, specifies the verb 'tests' and the resource 'list of proxy servers', and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like security_proxy_test and security_proxy_test_single.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use security_proxy_parse for normalizing input, use security_proxy_test for batch JSON, use this streaming variant for incremental progress. Also mentions rate limits and CAPTCHA constraints, aiding in deciding when to use.

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