octo_get_proxies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and it states the exact output fields. It does not mention edge cases such as empty results or authentication, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable and not misleading.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, and the field list follows naturally, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema already covering return values, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the key output fields, so an agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds value by specifying output fields rather than parameter details, matching the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'List', names the resource 'saved proxies', and enumerates the returned fields: type, host, port, and UUID. No sibling tool targets proxies, so it is clearly distinguished from the other listed 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?

The description makes the usage context clear: this tool is for viewing all saved proxies. There are no alternative proxy tools among siblings to compare against, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary. It falls short of 5 because it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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