get_proxy_auth

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully covers behavior: it is read-only, returns live credentials, and includes a security warning about not echoing sensitive data. Clearly states the tool does not mutate state.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage, security warning, and limitations. Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy. It is comprehensive yet concise for the information conveyed.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details what is returned (auth method, credentials, whitelist, caller IP) and the null case. It also covers read-only nature and security handling. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying the source ('from list_proxies'), which is not in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the additional context justifies a 4.

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 tool retrieves authentication settings for a proxy service, including specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings like get_proxy by focusing on auth-specific data and references list_proxies for the ID source.

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?

Explicitly advises using the tool to check authentication before adding a whitelisted IP or switching auth mode. Mentions that write operations are not yet exposed as MCP tools, guiding the agent on scope and limitations.

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