coronium_test_modem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a request is sent through the modem's endpoint and returns IP/latency, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any prerequisites (e.g., modem must be active), or error behavior. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 long, front-loading the purpose ('Test connectivity through a proxy') and adding essential detail in the second sentence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, mechanism, and return value. It lacks preconditions and output format details, but these are not critical for this straightforward 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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'proxy' parameter with a clear description (modem _id or portId/name), and the tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool tests connectivity through a proxy, specifying the mechanism (HTTP/SOCKS endpoint) and the outputs (external IP and latency). It is distinct from sibling tools like coronium_get_proxy_health or coronium_get_proxy, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for verifying proxy connectivity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given, so the usage context is only implied.

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