proximo_call

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

Beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: it enforces the same gates as direct calls (dry-run plan, ledger entry, token ACL) and explicitly states it is 'a smaller doorway, not a looser one', reassuring that it doesn't bypass restrictions. It also notes it can call tools not in the server's list, which is essential behavioral context not captured in annotations or schema.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence supplies the key usage prerequisite and behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a generic dispatcher tool, the description covers all needed aspects: how to call it, where to get argument shapes, and what restrictions apply. It even anticipates the 'non-listed tool' case. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the return value depends on the invoked tool, and the description successfully conveys that this is a dynamic forwarder.

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 schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (tool with an example and note about non-resident names; arguments with an example and instruction to get the shape from proximo_tool_schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond reinforcing the schema's guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Call any Proximo tool by exact name', and further clarifies it can invoke tools 'not in this server's listed tools', distinguishing it from sibling tools like proximo_read or proximo_find_tools that target specific operations. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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?

It provides a concrete prerequisite ('Get the argument shape from proximo_tool_schema first') and states that the same gates apply ('dry-run PLAN, ledger entry, token ACL'). It implies the primary use case (calling non-resident tools) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the guidance is actionable and contextually clear.

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