PCM

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s] the current proxy configuration' but doesn't describe what the configuration includes, whether it's read-only, if it requires permissions, or how it behaves (e.g., returns an error if no proxy is set). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the current proxy configuration'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain what the proxy configuration includes, potential return values, or error conditions. For a retrieval tool in a financial/API context, more context about the configuration structure would be helpful, though the absence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values explicitly.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and no misalignment.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('current proxy configuration'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set-proxy-config' or 'test-proxy-connection', but the verb 'Get' versus 'set'/'test' provides implicit distinction. This is specific enough for a simple retrieval operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when it's appropriate (e.g., before setting or testing proxy config), or contrast it with siblings like 'set-proxy-config' or 'test-proxy-connection'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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