proximo_tool_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool returns the full description and JSON input schema, but it omits critical behavioral details such as error handling for invalid tool names, side effects, or read-only guarantees. For a tool with no annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core output. It is efficient and free of unnecessary content, though it is not a fully grammatical sentence and could benefit from clearer structure.

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 simple tool, the description covers the basic function but lacks details on the return structure (e.g., whether it returns an object with 'description' and 'schema' fields), error behavior, and the relationship to proximo_find_tools. There is no output schema to compensate for these gaps, leaving the description incomplete.

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, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning by clarifying that 'name' refers to a tool found via proximo_find_tools. However, it does not specify format constraints, defaults, or the exact source of the name, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the resource (full description and JSON input schema) but lacks a clear verb/action. It distinguishes itself by referencing 'one tool found via proximo_find_tools,' but the purpose remains vague and without a direct statement of what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is used to retrieve the schema for a tool discovered via proximo_find_tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide any exclusions or conditions for use.

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