test_proxy

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: throwaway browser, cookieless, anonymous x.com load, latency includes boot, rotation cursor advancement, credential masking. No contradictions.

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?

Single paragraph with essential information, front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more compact but every sentence contributes value.

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?

Despite complexity (proxy resolution, rotation, boot loading) and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary details for an agent to understand behavior and expected response (egress IP, latency).

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds complete meaning: explains the two parameters (account, proxy_url) and the resolution logic (proxy_url wins, account uses direct URL or pool). Adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool probes a proxy with a throwaway browser and reports egress IP and latency. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_proxy' or 'remove_proxy' which manage proxy configurations, not test them.

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?

Description explains when to use (to test a proxy) and how parameters interact (proxy_url wins over account). It implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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