proxy_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful context that the proxy is configured per Chrome profile and that the reported IP is what remote sites see, but it says nothing about prerequisites (an active/connected browser session), whether it is a safe read, or what happens when no profile is active.

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 short sentences with no filler and the key subject (proxy + observed IP) front-loaded. The only flaw is the garbled second clause, which costs clarity but not length.

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?

For a zero-param status tool there is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value. It names the two returned facts (proxy, visible IP) but does not describe the shape or format of the response or any failure state, leaving the agent to guess the payload.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, consistent with the empty schema.

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 conveys what the tool surfaces — the active profile's proxy and the IP that sites observe — but it is a sentence fragment with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling chrome_status. An agent can infer it is a read/status tool, but the purpose is only implied rather than stated.

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?

It names an alternative route ('for another IP, profile_use another profile'), which is genuine routing guidance, but it never states the positive condition for calling this tool (e.g. 'call this to verify the current egress IP'). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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