Current proxy configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that by enumerating the returned fields and warning that a proxy change may need a restart to affect existing connections. That restart caveat is non-obvious and directly actionable, though it does not discuss failure modes or unset values.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is read, then the mode legend and the restart caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and their value encoding, plus the one operational caveat (restart). For a zero-argument read tool this is as complete as an agent needs.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by decoding the returned mode field (0 none, 1 manual, 2 PAC, 4 auto-detect, 5 use system settings), which an agent would otherwise have to guess since there is no output 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?

Specific verb (read) plus resource (proxy settings) with the exact preference namespace (network.proxy.*) and the fields returned. It is unambiguously the read counterpart to browser_set_proxy and cannot be confused with any other sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool reads the current config, so an agent infers it should call this before/instead of mutating. It never names browser_set_proxy as the alternative for changes, nor states any precondition, leaving the read-vs-write routing to inference.

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