get_proxy_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is a probe and lists the data it returns, giving some transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or behavior on missing pods or services, which is a gap given the lack of annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the key metrics. It wastes no words and is easily scannable, making it ideal for an agent to quickly grasp its function.

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 complexity, the description covers the core data but omits details like whether results are aggregated across pods or returned individually, error handling, and the actual necessity of the namespace parameter. The schema description for namespace conflicts with the required list, adding ambiguity that the tool description does not resolve. With no output schema or annotations, this leaves some gaps.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify the apparent discrepancy that namespace is described as required but not marked as required in the schema, so no additional value is added.

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 specific purpose: probing nginx stub_status per pod, listing the exact metrics (active/reading/writing/waiting) and the comparison of accepts vs handled (drops). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_proxy_config_summary or get_connection_pool_status by focusing on nginx stub_status data.

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 only has a '[probe]' label, implying it's for diagnostics, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusion criteria or direct the agent to other tools for different scenarios, leaving the selection ambiguous.

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