proxy_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '创建代理' (create proxy) implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or what happens upon successful creation. It fails to provide any context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with just two Chinese characters, which could be seen as efficient. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It's front-loaded in the sense that there's nothing else, but it fails to provide necessary context for a tool with 12 parameters.

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 (12 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters, leaving the agent with insufficient information to understand or invoke this tool correctly. For a creation tool with many parameters, this level of description is insufficient.

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 description provides no information about any of the 12 parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what parameters like 'address', 'port', 'type', 'agentGroupName', or others mean, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of the inputs required.

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 '创建代理' (create proxy) restates the tool name 'proxy_create' in Chinese, making it a tautology. It doesn't specify what kind of proxy is being created or what resources are involved. While it indicates a creation action, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like proxy_query, proxy_remove, or proxy_revise.

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 are multiple sibling tools for proxy management (proxy_query, proxy_remove, proxy_revise), but the description doesn't indicate that this is specifically for creating new proxies versus querying, removing, or revising existing ones. No context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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