Get Proxy Configuration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, what format the configuration is returned in, whether it's cached, or any error conditions. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists specific configuration elements. Every word earns its place - there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (configuration retrieval), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage for a single optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what configuration elements are included but doesn't address return format, error handling, or relationship to other tools, leaving the agent to make assumptions.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (proxyPort), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain when proxyPort should be specified, what happens if omitted, or how it affects the returned configuration.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'HTTP Toolkit proxy configuration', with specific details about what's included (certificate paths, network interfaces, system proxy, DNS servers). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_network_interfaces' by specifying it's about proxy configuration specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other configuration-related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_network_interfaces' or 'get_interceptor_metadata'. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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