check_proxies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that checks run sequentially ('one after another'), warns about the time cost ('up to about ten seconds each'), explicitly says 'Changes nothing' (reinforcing read-only), and discloses that profiles without a proxy are reported as such. This is useful operational detail that annotations don't provide.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, the timing caveat is placed early, and the safety guarantee ('Changes nothing') and edge-case behavior ('Profiles without a proxy are reported as such') are each given a single efficient sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, how long it takes, that it's non-destructive, and how missing proxies are handled. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return format or how results are presented, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is a small omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'profiles' parameter fully. The description adds the semantic nuance that omitting the parameter checks every profile available to the agent, which is a meaningful addition beyond the schema's 'omit to check every profile' phrasing. However, since the schema already covers the parameter well, the description's contribution is modest, warranting the baseline 3.

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 the tool's function: testing proxies for profiles, with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('proxies of several profiles'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the batch behavior (multiple profiles or every profile) and the fallback when no list is given, which differentiates it from the singular 'check_proxy' sibling.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: to test proxies of several profiles or all profiles, and notes the alternative behavior when no list is provided. It also implies a contrast with the singular 'check_proxy' sibling by focusing on batch operations. The timing warning ('up to about ten seconds each') gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus a faster single-check alternative.

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