test_proxy

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing critical behavioral traits: the throwaway browser is cookieless and does not use account cookies or warm sessions, it performs an anonymous x.com/home load (contributing to latency), and credentials are masked in the response. It also reveals the side effect of advancing a round-robin pool's rotation cursor.

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 paragraph of several sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, but there is slight redundancy (e.g., 'throwaway browser' mentioned twice). Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (side effects, optional parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main behavior, parameter interactions, and response content (egress IP + latency). Minor gaps exist, such as what happens if neither proxy_url nor account is provided, but the description implies at least one should be set.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the interaction between proxy_url and account parameters (precedence and how account resolves to a URL or pool assignment). However, it does not specify expected formats (e.g., 'socks5://...' or 'pool:...') or provide examples, which may leave ambiguity for invocation.

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: 'Probe a proxy with a throwaway browser' and details the actions: resolving proxy, opening an IP-echo page, reporting egress IP and latency. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like list_proxies or add_proxy.

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 clear context on parameter precedence ('explicit proxy_url wins; otherwise the account's direct URL or pool:<name> assignment') and a specific usage nuance ('With a round_robin pool, probing via `account` advances the pool's rotation cursor'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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