proxy_status

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned data (files done, current file, attached proxies, failures), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says whether the call blocks, how waitSeconds affects behavior, or whether completed job state persists, leaving the operation's most consequential trait undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the field list is a compact enumeration. It is efficient, though its terseness is what leaves parameters and job lifecycle unexplained.

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 job-status polling tool with no annotations, no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain the polling contract and waitSeconds behavior. It conveys none of that.

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 mentions neither of the two parameters. The required jobId's origin (from create_proxies) and especially waitSeconds' blocking semantics — the key behavioral parameter — are completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: progress/status of a create_proxies job, and enumerates the reported fields. It clearly belongs to the proxy job lifecycle alongside create_proxies/manage_proxies, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Progress of a create_proxies job' implies it should be called after starting that job, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement about polling vs blocking, and no guidance on what to do once the job finishes or fails.

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