proximo_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and honestly discloses that the tool enforces the same gates (dry-run PLAN, ledger entry, token ACL) and is not a looser access point. It also reveals it can access unlisted tools, which is valuable context beyond the 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words; each sentence adds value: purpose, usage hint, and behavioral warning.

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 dispatch tool, it covers critical usage points: obtaining schema, calling by name, and same gates. It does not explain return values, but these depend on the target tool and are not describable generically. The mention of sibling tools like proximo_tool_schema provides additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by telling the agent to get the argument shape from proximo_tool_schema, and clarifies that 'tool' is an exact name. This adds semantic meaning, though it relies on another tool for full parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as a gateway to call any Proximo tool by exact name, including ones not in the server's listed tools. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proximo_recall or audit_entries, making it 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 instructs to fetch the argument shape from proximo_tool_schema first and notes that the same gates apply as direct calls. This implies it is for dynamic or unlisted tool access, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when a tool is directly listed).

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