Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

The description significantly adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). It details the specific URL hit, the diagnostics returned (role, port, version, RTT, hint), and states 'Read-only, no auth required', reinforcing the annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences: the first packs all functional details efficiently, the second provides clear usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, and expected output (diagnostics). Despite no output schema, it explicitly names the returned fields and hint logic, making it self-contained.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it performs a round-trip test through the fetchproxy bridge using a specific small URL, and lists the exact diagnostics returned. This verb+resource specificity distinguishes it perfectly from sibling data-retrieval tools.

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 says 'Call this when a real tool fails' which is a clear usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use, though the context of sibling tools makes this evident.

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