get_proxoperator

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields and the version-resolution rule (default = latest), but says nothing about failure behavior when the name is unknown, whether the name is case-sensitive, or how large the payload may be.

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, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the one non-obvious parameter's behavior. Zero filler, though the line break makes the version note read as a tacked-on afterthought.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be spelled out, and the description still names the returned sections. For a simple two-parameter lookup this is nearly sufficient; only name-format and not-found behavior are missing.

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%, so the description carries the param burden. It documents pyproximal_version well (version selector, default latest, example value "0.10"), but leaves 'name' undefined beyond the implied operator identifier — no format, casing, or canonical-name guidance.

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 ('Get') plus the exact payload — signature, parameters, notes and examples — of a named PyProximal operator. That is clearly distinct from list_proxperators and get_proxsolver by name alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. It is inferable that you call this after finding an operator name (e.g. via list_proxperators), but the description leaves that entirely to the agent's inference.

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