Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it's read-only and no auth required, consistent with annotations, and details the diagnostic outputs, enhancing transparency beyond structured fields.

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 efficient with three sentences. First sentence states action and outputs, second gives usage guidance, third declares safety. No redundant or excessive text.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return values (role, port, version, RTT, hint). It also covers when to use and safety, making it complete for a diagnostic tool.

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?

No parameters present, so description naturally does not add parameter meaning. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 the tool round-trips a small public URL through the fetchproxy bridge and returns diagnostics. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling location 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 states 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke,' providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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