get_proxy_credentials

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the tool does not rotate or change the password, that the password is a live credential granting paid access, and provides detailed secret-handling guidance. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, primary alternative, read-only behavior, and secret handling are each clearly separated. The secret-handling guidance is essential and front-loaded, and the overall structure is easy to parse.

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 description covers what the tool returns, the key alternative, the security implications, and how the agent should handle the credential. Although there is no output schema, the description names all relevant output components, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, including the full enum with human-readable mappings for each product value. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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'), a clear resource ('proxy username and PLAINTEXT PASSWORD ... along with gateway hostname, ports and remaining balance'), and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling build_proxy_connection_string. An agent can immediately understand what this tool returns and how it differs from related proxy 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 gives an explicit usage rule: prefer build_proxy_connection_string when the user just wants something to paste into a client. It also implies when get_proxy_credentials is appropriate — when a live credential is needed for config, command, or code — making tool selection unambiguous.

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