shell_proxy_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: random localhost port, in-memory-only secret injection into a configured header, automatic stop after TTL (default 300s), and an explicit guarantee that the secret is never returned. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the injection model and lifetime. No sentence is filler; every clause adds operational information.

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?

No output schema, and the description covers the key return caveat (secret never returned), but it doesn't explicitly state that the chosen port is surfaced to the caller—an agent must infer how to learn <port>. Otherwise complete for a two-parameter lifecycle tool.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning: `id` maps to a `proxies` entry in config.yaml, and `ttlSeconds` overrides a documented default of defaults.proxyTtlSeconds=300s. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'TTL override (seconds)'.

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 ('Start a credential-injecting reverse proxy') scoped to a `proxies` entry, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like shell_proxy_stop and shell_proxy_list. An agent can identify exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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 tells the agent how to use the result: 'Point commands at http://127.0.0.1:<port> instead of the real API host.' This gives clear operational context, but it does not state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. shell_exec with a secret directly) or any preconditions.

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