proximo_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'READ-ONLY' and 'refuses anything that can mutate'. It adds behavioral context by mentioning the refusal behavior (it will reject mutations) and the prerequisite flow (get shape from proximo_tool_schema first). With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description goes a step further to describe refusal behavior, which is valuable.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key safety trait (READ-ONLY) and the refusal behavior, then stating the flow and routing. Every word contributes meaning; no filler.

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 dispatcher tool with minimal parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (read-only, refusal, routing to proximo_call, prerequisite schema lookup). It does not describe the return format, but the tool is a generic executor; the return depends on the called tool, which the agent can learn from proximo_tool_schema. This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the parameters. However, the tool has only two parameters: 'tool' (required, a string) and 'arguments' (optional, an object or null). The description explains that 'tool' is an exact name and 'arguments' are passed to that tool. Though it does not detail the structure of arguments, it establishes the usage pattern. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the generic nature of a dispatcher tool.

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: run a read-only Proximo tool by exact name. It explicitly distinguishes itself from proximo_call (which handles mutations) by declaring 'refuses anything that can mutate (use proximo_call for those)'. This differentiates it from siblings immediately.

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 explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent to use this tool for read-only operations and to use proximo_call for mutating operations. It also instructs the agent to get the tool shape from proximo_tool_schema first, which is a clear when-to-use directive for the companion tool.

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