Get Proxy Host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does good work: it declares read-only behavior and the important side-effect guarantee that it 'does not reload Nginx' (a meaningful trait for a reverse-proxy config tool). It omits error behavior for an unknown ID and any auth/permission context, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, sibling routing, and behavioral/return disclosure. Front-loaded with the primary action and no redundant restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, alternative routing, safety profile, and return contents. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is documented in the schema as coming 'from the matching list tool.' The description adds no syntax or format beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameter documentation applies.

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 ('Fetch one proxy host by ID') plus the scope of returned data (configured fields and current status). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_proxy_hosts, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('details about one host') and names the alternative with its own condition ('use list_proxy_hosts to find IDs or inspect all hosts'). The selection logic between the two tools is fully spelled out.

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