albyhub_proxy_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format ('response status, headers, and (JSON-parsed when possible) body') and critical safety gating ('Non-GET methods are gated by ALBYHUB_READ_ONLY and ALBYHUB_REQUIRE_CONFIRM'). It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the essential behavior is well communicated.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, return behavior, and relationship to siblings. It is front-loaded with the generic-purpose statement and contains no redundant phrases.

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 proxy tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: when to use it, what it returns, safety gating, and how to discover endpoints. It does not detail error cases or authentication setup, but those are less critical for a low-level catch-all proxy. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its purpose.

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?

All six parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides—for example, the gating on non-GET methods is already stated in the method parameter description. Thus, the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 opens with 'Generic HTTP proxy to your Alby Hub admin API', clearly stating a specific verb (proxy) and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Use this when no typed convenience tool exists' and naming the typed wrappers (get_node_info, list_apps, get_balances) as alternatives.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when no typed convenience tool exists for the endpoint you need.' It also recommends the typed wrappers as good defaults, giving clear direction on choosing this tool versus alternatives.

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