proxy_http

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: server-side allow-list validation before credential injection, approval prompts for sensitive presets, non-bypassable approval, time-boxed approval windows, and audit logging. This is unusually complete for a security-sensitive proxy tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds relevant security and audit details. It is generally efficient, though the audit-log point is slightly repeated across sentences.

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?

The tool has no annotations, five parameters, and an output schema; the description covers purpose, validation, authentication flow, approval behavior, and audit logging. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without needing return-value details.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all five parameters. The description reinforces the preset/path/method/body/query roles but does not add syntax or semantic detail beyond what the input schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: making an HTTP request through a preset. It also explains the preset's role and the caller-supplied fields, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_exec, sftp_transfer, or db_query.

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?

Provides clear operational context: the preset supplies base URL and authentication, while the caller supplies path, method, and optional body/query. It does not explicitly compare this tool against alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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