proxy_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '查询代理列表' implies a read-only operation but doesn't confirm safety, permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with no parameters. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps about how the query actually works.

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 at just four characters ('查询代理列表'), which is appropriately sized for a simple query tool. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the query's purpose beyond the basic action, provides no parameter guidance, and offers no behavioral context. For a tool with rich filtering capabilities (8 parameters including enums), this minimal description leaves too much undefined about how to effectively use the tool.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description '查询代理列表' adds no information about any of the 8 parameters (page, size, id, provider, type, status, address, remark). It doesn't explain what these parameters filter, their formats, or how they interact. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 '查询代理列表' (query proxy list) states the basic action (query) and resource (proxy list), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify whether this lists all proxies, searches/filters proxies, or provides paginated results. Compared to siblings like proxy_create, proxy_remove, and proxy_revise, it distinguishes as a query operation but lacks specificity about scope or filtering capabilities.

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. It doesn't mention when to use proxy_query versus other query tools like env_query or group_query, or how it relates to sibling proxy operations (create, remove, revise). There's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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