get_app_proxy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Fetch app proxy configuration' and adds no context about return format, permissions, side effects, or whether the configuration is for the current store. The word 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicit and lacks behavioral detail.

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 a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word is meaningful.

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 simple zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies exactly what is fetched (app proxy configuration for the store). However, it does not describe the shape of the returned configuration or any prerequisites, which would make it more complete, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter details, and with 0 params the baseline is 4. It does not misleadingly imply any parameters that don't exist.

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 uses a specific verb (Fetch) and a specific resource (app proxy configuration for the store). It clearly distinguishes this read operation from sibling write operations like create_app_proxy, update_app_proxy, and delete_app_proxy.

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 implies usage as a getter for the app proxy configuration, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives (e.g., get_apps or get_app). No exclusions or alternative mentions are present, so usage is only implied.

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