PCM

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool tests a proxy connection but doesn't describe what the test involves (e.g., network ping, API call simulation), expected outcomes, error handling, or side effects (e.g., logging, rate limits). 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the exchange parameter context.

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 complexity of a testing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the test entails, what results to expect (e.g., success/failure indicators), or how it interacts with other tools like 'set-proxy-config'. For a tool that likely involves network operations and error scenarios, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, with the parameter 'exchange' fully documented in the schema as 'Exchange ID to test connection with (e.g., binance)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats 'specified exchange' without elaborating on format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Test') and the resource ('proxy connection'), specifying it's for a particular exchange. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-proxy-config' or 'set-proxy-config' by focusing on testing rather than configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., it could be more specific about what 'test' entails compared to general connectivity checks).

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 (e.g., needing a configured proxy first), when testing is appropriate (e.g., after setup or troubleshooting), or alternatives like checking proxy config directly. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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