session_proxy_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description never confirms this, nor mentions ordering, scoping, or pagination behavior for the registry.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits any actionable guidance an agent might need.

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 description need not document return values, and with no parameters there is no argument surface to explain. For a trivial zero-arg list tool, this is essentially complete; only the sibling routing is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is nominally 100% because the empty object is fully described by its own shape.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved proxy registry entries'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like session_proxy_get or session_rotate_proxy, leaving the boundary to be inferred from names alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as session_proxy_get for a single entry, nor any caveats about scope (all saved entries vs. session-active proxies). Usage must be guessed 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.