session_proxy_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but does not state whether it is safe, what permissions are needed, or how it behaves when the proxy name is not found.

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 single sentence is efficiently front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple getter, though the extreme brevity contributes to gaps documented in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value does not need explanation in the description. The tool is simple with one required parameter, but the absence of annotations, parameter detail, and any usage or error context leaves it only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented proxy_name parameter. Saying 'by name' adds only minimal selector context, with no format, constraints, or examples for the expected proxy name value.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('proxy registry entry') with a scoping condition ('by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write/delete/list tools like session_proxy_list, session_proxy_set, and session_proxy_delete, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not state prerequisites, when to prefer this over session_proxy_list, or what happens if the named entry is absent. Usage can only be inferred from the tool name.

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