proxy_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists output fields but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or other behavioral traits. While 'show' implies read-only, it is not explicit.

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 a single sentence with 11 words, front-loading the purpose ('Show proxy pool status') and efficiently listing the key fields. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the functionality by listing the output fields. It could mention that the tool is read-only or returns a JSON object, but it is sufficient for a simple status 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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the input schema already covers the zero parameters completely.

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 ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('proxy pool status'). It lists the returned fields (source, working count, age, freshness, validation progress), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxy_refresh that perform an action.

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 use when you need to check proxy pool status, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like proxy_refresh. No exclusions or context for usage are given.

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