Aegis Proxy Request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: authentication is handled automatically, credentials are not visible, and it specifies the required inputs (service name and API path). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, response formats, or other behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent or has side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and key behavior. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the purpose, and the second clarifies authentication handling. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and authentication mechanism but lacks details on response handling, error scenarios, or advanced usage. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely on the schema for parameter details, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only mentioning that credentials are injected and specifying the required inputs. It does not elaborate on parameter interactions or usage nuances, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Make an authenticated API call through Aegis.' It specifies the verb ('Make'), resource ('API call'), and mechanism ('through Aegis'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from its siblings (aegis_health and aegis_list_services), which likely serve different purposes like health checks or listing services.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'authenticated API call' and 'credentials are injected automatically,' suggesting it's for making requests to services registered with Aegis. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or other alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool names and descriptions.

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