npm_get_proxy_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not describe return format (e.g., object shape), error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), or any side effects. It adds no context beyond the verb, so transparency is low.

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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary details. For a simple getter, this level of conciseness is appropriate and efficiently communicates the core function.

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 simplicity of a single-get operation, the description covers the essential purpose. However, there is no output schema to explain the return value, and the description does not define what happens if the id does not exist, leaving some incompleteness. It is adequate but lacks richer context that would make the tool fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by id' confirms that the single parameter is the identifier of the proxy host, but this adds minimal meaning since the parameter is already named 'id' and the tool is named 'get_proxy_host'. It does not explain the integer constraint, formatting, or how to obtain the id, so compensation is weak.

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 'Get a single proxy host by id' clearly states the action (get), the resource (proxy host), and the scope (single by id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_list_proxy_hosts (which retrieves all) and npm_create_proxy_host/update/delete (mutations).

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 implies usage when you need a specific proxy host by id, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus npm_list_proxy_hosts or other getters, making the usage guidelines implied rather than explicit for an agent.

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