octo_get_proxies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the output fields, which is useful, and 'Get list' implies a read-only operation. However, it omits details like pagination, potential errors, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise enumeration of output fields. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers its functionality and output. It could mention whether the list is paginated or if any filters apply, but these are minor omissions for a straightforward read-only list tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). Per the rubric, 0 params merits a baseline of 4; the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics, and it does not introduce any confusion.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get list' and identifies the resource 'all proxies', while enumerating the output fields (type, host, port, uuid). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like octo_list_profiles or octo_health_check, which serve different resources.

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 proxy information is needed, and since no sibling tool provides proxy data, the context is clear. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or mention of alternative tools, but given its unique purpose, the absence is not critical.

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