list_indexerproxy_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context—it doesn't explain that the tool returns a schema (not live data), nor does it describe response format, potential errors, or any other behavior beyond the bare read operation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of 'Read IndexerProxy.' and the GET endpoint. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the endpoint adds specificity. It is not verbose, but it might be too terse to convey the schema-specific nature of the tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not clarify that the tool returns the schema for IndexerProxy, which could lead to confusion with list_indexerproxy. Given the sibling tools, it should explicitly state 'schema' and differentiate from resource retrieval. The output schema exists, but the description leaves the purpose ambiguous.

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 zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The schema has 100% coverage (trivially, with no params), and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 states 'Read IndexerProxy.' which identifies a read operation on the IndexerProxy resource, but it doesn't explicitly mention 'schema'. The HTTP endpoint includes '/schema', which hints at schema retrieval, but the natural-language description is vague and could be confused with list_indexerproxy (which likely returns the actual proxies). The tool name clarifies, but the description itself lacks precision.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_indexerproxy or other list_*_schema tools. It doesn't state that this retrieves the schema definition rather than the resource data, nor does it mention any alternatives or conditions for use.

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