test_proxy

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations with details the agent could not infer: the browser is isolated and cookieless, it only touches an IP-echo endpoint, authenticated proxies work on async HTTP(S) but not legacy Selenium, and round_robin probes mutate a persistent cursor. That last disclosure is a side effect the annotations do not surface, which is exactly the kind of behavior this dimension rewards.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded and every sentence carries operative information, with no boilerplate. It is dense and telegraphic in places ('never X', 'legacy round_robin probes advance its cursor'), reading as compressed notes rather than clean prose, which costs some accessibility.

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?

An output schema already exists, yet the description still names the salient returns (validated egress IP, startup/request latency, masked route), and it covers the auth and backend-compatibility constraints an agent needs before calling. For a two-parameter diagnostic probe, nothing material is missing.

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% (only bare titles 'Account' and 'Proxy Url'), so the description carries the burden and does: it defines proxy_url as an override and account as a source of inherited global proxy configuration. It adds real meaning, though it does not say what an account value's format is or what happens if both are null.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('probe the effective proxy') and the exact mechanism: an isolated, cookieless browser against an IP-echo endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from the proxy-management siblings (add_proxy, remove_proxy, list_proxies), which administer proxies rather than exercise one.

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?

Explains the precedence rule that governs selection ('explicit proxy_url wins; account assignments inherit the global proxy') and flags an incompatible backend (legacy Selenium rejects authenticated proxies), which tells the agent when the call will fail. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or naming an alternative diagnostic to prefer under other conditions.

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