Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains exactly what happens (a round-trip through the bridge), what will be returned (role, port, version, extension link state, elapsed time, plain-English hint), and the auth requirements ('Read-only, no auth required'). It adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: the action, the fixed target, the diagnostic fields, the output interpretation, and the usage cue. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and the usage guidance is separated cleanly at the end.

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?

This is a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, and the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, what it returns, how to interpret the hint, when to call it, and its safety profile. Nothing essential is missing.

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, and the description explains that the tool uses a fixed public URL and needs no user input. This adds clarity beyond the empty schema and makes the no-parameter design explicit.

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 names a specific verb ('Round-trips'), a specific resource (www.compass.com/robots.txt through the fetchproxy bridge), and the exact diagnostic outputs. It clearly differentiates this healthcheck from the data-retrieval and session-management siblings, so an agent can distinguish it at a glance.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' It does not enumerate alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the purpose is specific enough that the intended usage is clear.

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