proxy_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool forwards calls, attaches environment variables, and returns the proxied result. However, it omits details on error handling, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, which are important for a proxy tool.

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 well-structured with an Args and Returns section, making it easy to scan. It is mostly concise, though the first sentence could be integrated to reduce 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 role as a proxy forwarding to other servers, the description adequately covers the core behavior: forwarding, environment variable usage, and return value. It could mention error scenarios or argument validation, but is sufficient for typical use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters (tool_name, arguments) and briefly describes them as 'name of the tool to call' and 'arguments to pass.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, but does not specify formats, constraints, or behavior when arguments are null.

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 calls a tool on the current context's MCP server, acting as a proxy. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools (get_current_context, list_contexts, list_proxied_tools, switch_context) which manage context rather than invoke tools.

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 explains that the tool forwards calls to the underlying MCP server with environment variables, implying its use for interacting with proxied tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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