Test proxy connectivity

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

The annotations already convey that the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose. It does not mention potential side effects, network requirements, response format, or whether the test establishes persistent connections.

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 and easy to parse, but the first sentence is redundant with the title and adds no information. The second sentence provides a small amount of context, but overall the description is more under-specified than efficiently concise.

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 three nested optional parameter objects and no output schema, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It does not clarify what a successful or failed connectivity test looks like, how selectors like proxyChain and singleProxy relate, or what the tool returns to the caller.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only generically says 'proxy configuration' and 'target host,' which maps loosely to the parameters. It does not explain the distinction between proxyChain and singleProxy, the meaning of host/port/type/username/password, or which parameters are required under what conditions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Tests connectivity through a proxy configuration to a target host.' This clarifies what the tool does beyond the title, although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, none of which appear to overlap with proxy connectivity testing.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or intended scenarios. The tool name and description imply a test operation, but the description does not explain when an agent should choose it over other host-related tools.

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