get_all_proxy_formats

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry full burden. It only states the function but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, or the nature of the returned formats. Agent lacks key behavioral context.

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?

Description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No extraneous information. Slightly more detail could improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given simple parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks detail about what 'common proxy formats' entails and does not hint at the return structure, which could help the agent.

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%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves 'all common proxy formats' for a port and notes usefulness for different applications. Verb 'get' and resource 'proxy formats' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_proxy_connection_string', the distinction is inferable.

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?

Description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_proxy_connection_string, nor does it mention prerequisites or restrictions. The phrase 'useful for different applications' is vague.

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