security_proxy_test_stream

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

The description discloses the streaming behavior (Server-Sent Events), which adds transparency. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention side effects, resource consumption, or whether it is read-only or destructive. The streaming detail is helpful but incomplete.

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 includes unnecessary 'Menu ID' information. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the final sentence about 'describe_tool' could be omitted without loss of essential content. Adequate but not optimal conciseness.

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 has nested parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain input format, return values, error handling, or any contextual details. Relies entirely on another tool for guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'proxies' or 'options' (including 'concurrency' and 'retryAttempts'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is critical given the nested objects and lack of schema descriptions.

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 proxy servers and streams progress using Server-Sent Events. It distinguishes from sibling tools like security_proxy_test and security_proxy_test_single by emphasizing streaming. However, the inclusion of 'Menu ID' is redundant and slightly distracts.

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 this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'describe_tool' implies further documentation elsewhere, but the description itself lacks usage context or prerequisites.

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