Mitm Set Map Remote

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 conveys that the operation redirects requests and applies live, but it does not mention that this mutates mitmproxy state, how existing rules are affected, whether the rule persists, or what happens to matching requests during application.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded first, and the live mitmweb context is relegated to the second sentence, making it easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with a nested rule object, a session identifier, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits the effect on existing rules, session binding, and relationship to sibling tools, so an agent may not fully understand the operational impact before invoking it.

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?

Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, and the top-level description only captures url_pattern and replacement_url at a high level. It does not clarify session_id semantics or the optional filter_expression field, so the description does not compensate adequately for the low top-level coverage, even though nested properties have some schema documentation.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Redirect requests matching a URL regex to another remote URL' using mitmproxy map_remote. It also notes it is applied live over mitmweb, making the tool's function immediately identifiable and distinguishable from the sibling set_map_local tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mitm_set_map_local or mitm_filter_flows. The phrase 'Applied live over mitmweb' gives some context, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different sibling would be more appropriate.

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