npm_get_proxy_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a non-destructive read but says nothing about required permissions, error behavior for an unknown host_id, or what the returned 'details' comprise.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the retrieval key is placed at the end where it reads naturally. It is efficient, though 'details' is a vague noun for a resource whose return shape is undocumented.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the 'details' payload contains and what expand yields, but it does neither. For a simple read this is not catastrophic, yet the expand parameter's effect remains unexplained anywhere.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by ID' merely restates host_id and the description adds nothing about the expand parameter (which related objects are valid) beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (get), resource (proxy host), and retrieval key (by ID), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling npm_list_proxy_hosts. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the mutation siblings (npm_update_proxy_host, npm_delete_proxy_host), so differentiation is implied by the name rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent to call npm_list_proxy_hosts first to discover a host_id, nor when this is preferable to listing. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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