autobrr_proxy

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It explicitly labels write operations (create, test, update) and destructive operations (delete) with warnings like 'this modifies your autobrr instance' and 'this deletes data', providing valuable safety context beyond what any annotation could.

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 with a brief instruction up front followed by a clear bulleted list. Each bullet conveys operation name, parameter signature, and side-effect status without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity and front-loads the critical dispatch mechanism.

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 dispatcher with a generic schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers all operations, parameter formats, and side effects, while the presence of an output schema removes the need to document return values. The scope is well-defined, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the `arguments` object completely open-ended. The description compensates by detailing each operation's parameter pattern (e.g., body={}, proxy_id), giving the agent concrete guidance on how to structure the arguments dict for each operation. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 enumerates all six operations with specific verbs (Create, Delete, Fetch, List, Test, Update) and clearly indicates the resource (proxy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other autobrr modules, making the tool's purpose explicit and unambiguous.

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?

The description explains how to use the dispatcher (pass operation and arguments) and lists each operation's signature, making it clear which operation to invoke. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over alternatives, though the scope is implicitly obvious from the 'proxy operations' phrasing.

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