proxy_authenticated_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the security behavior (credential injection without exposure) but does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or whether the request is read-only or can modify state (depending on method). Sufficient but minimal.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action, then adds the critical security benefit. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and security context. It could mention expected response format or error handling, but the key aspects are present.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema; it only reaffirms that credentials are injected automatically, which is already in the headers parameter description.

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 action (make authenticated HTTP request), the resource (through Auth Box), and the key benefit (credential injection without exposure). It distinguishes from sibling tools: get_credential retrieves credentials, while this tool uses them for requests.

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 says 'This is the preferred method for using credentials,' implying the agent should use this tool over alternatives like get_credential when making authenticated requests. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it.

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