proximo_call

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden: it discloses that the same gates apply (dry-run PLAN, ledger entry, token ACL) and that the operation is 'not a looser one,' consistent with a mutating tool. It does not clarify whether a call executes the target immediately or first stages a plan, leaving one meaningful behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then prerequisite, then the gate/equivalence caveat. No sentence is redundant.

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 two-parameter dispatcher with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the non-resident scope, and the safety gates. The only gap is return behavior (does it surface the target tool's result?), which is minor given the wrapper nature.

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 100%, and both parameters ('tool' and 'arguments') are already documented in the schema, including the pointer to proximo_tool_schema for argument shape. The description adds little beyond reinforcing 'exact name,' so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (call) and resource (any Proximo tool by exact name), and explicitly scopes it to includenon-resident tools, which is exactly what separates it from the direct listed tools and from proximo_find_tools/proximo_tool_schema. An agent can tell what this dispatcher does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Get the argument shape from proximo_tool_schema first,' and frames the tool as an alternate path to calling directly ('Same gates as calling it directly'). It stops short of stating when to prefer this doorway over invoking a resident tool directly, so it is clear context without full when/when-not routing.

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