get_proxy_connection_string

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions generating a connection string but does not clarify if it validates the port, requires the port to exist, or what happens on error. The term 'generate' could be misleading if it merely retrieves a pre-existing string.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. No extraneous information, but some structure like lists or sections could improve readability without adding length.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the format of the returned connection string, nor does it cover error conditions or limitations. It covers the basic purpose but lacks completeness for a tool with three parameters.

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% as all three parameters have descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the protocol enum values. Baseline is 3 for high coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Generate' and clearly identifies the resource as a proxy connection string for a port, with explicit mention of protocols HTTP and SOCKS5. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage ports but do not generate connection strings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_port or other proxy-related tools. It lacks preconditions, exclusions, or hints about scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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