proxy_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing what the tool checks (reachability, latency, exit IP, anonymity level) and what it returns. It implies network testing behavior and gives a clear output structure, though it omits potential side effects like network latency or remote service load.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a purpose sentence followed by clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Every line adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description is complete: it explains the input with examples, the operations performed, and the exact return fields. An agent has sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description compensates by listing the parameter 'proxy_url' and providing concrete examples with supported schemes (socks5://, http://). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not detail validation constraints beyond the examples.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('proxy server'), listing concrete checks: reachability, latency, exit IP, and anonymity level. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_anonymity or validate_target.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose ('Validate a proxy server'), but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No guidance is given relative to sibling tools such as check_anonymity or tor_check.

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