coronium_get_proxy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and lists the returned fields (credentials, expiry, external IP, rotation interval). It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a simple read-only tool this is a reasonable baseline.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the action and target, and the second lists key included details. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently conveys purpose, selection method, and response contents. It does not explicitly mention the read-only nature beyond 'Get' or contrast with the plural variant, but given the low complexity, it is adequately complete.

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 already fully describes the 'proxy' parameter (Modem _id or portId/name with an example), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description's 'by id or name' restates the schema without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('full details for a single proxy') and identifies how the proxy is selected ('by id or name'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'coronium_get_proxies' (plural) by emphasizing 'single proxy'.

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 phrase 'single proxy' provides clear context that this tool is for one specific proxy rather than a list, which contrasts with the plural sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus an alternative or mention any exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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