proximo_tool_schema

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only nature of the operationunciated, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It does not mention side effects or permission requirements, but the readOnlyHint is sufficient. The description's statement about returning schema is a basic behavioral description, but it doesn't add much value over the annotation.

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 a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose. There is no fluff or repetition. It effectively communicates what the tool does in minimal words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It states what it returns and where the tool name originates. While it could mention that it doesn't execute the tool, the readOnlyHint and the nature of returning a schema make that implicit. Overall, an agent would know how to use it for most cases.

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 only parameter 'name' has no description in the schema, and schema coverage is 0%. The description implies that 'name' refers to a tool found via proximo_find_tools, providing some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state that 'name' is the tool name or give format examples. It adds moderate value but could be more explicit.

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 that the tool returns the full description and JSON input schema for a tool identified via proximo_find_tools. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', the purpose is unambiguous from the context of the tool name and description. It does not repeat the tool name, but the meaning is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, or on any prerequisites. For example, it does not mention that the tool name should come from proximo_find_tools, nor does it differentiate from proximo_read or other retrieval tools. The description simply states its function without usage context.

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