proxychains_mode

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

The description explains the behavioral differences between the four chain modes (strict, dynamic, random, round_robin) which is useful. However, it does not disclose other important behavioral traits such as whether the setting is persistent, requires a restart, or affects runtime state. Since annotations provide no additional info, the description carries full burden and is insufficient.

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: one introductory sentence followed by a list of modes and their behaviors. No unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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?

The description adequately explains the modes, but given the tool has two parameters and no output schema, more context is needed. It does not explain how 'chainLen' interacts with modes, nor does it describe the effect of changing the mode (e.g., does it update a config file or runtime state?). With many sibling tools, additional context would help differentiate usage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what each enum value means, which goes beyond the schema's 'Chain mode to use'. However, the 'chainLen' parameter is not mentioned in the description, missing an opportunity to clarify its connection to random/round_robin modes. Overall, partial added meaning.

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 is to set the chain mode for proxychains, with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('chain mode'). It lists the four modes with brief explanations, differentiating from sibling tools like proxychains_run or proxychains_config that perform other actions. However, explicit sibling differentiation is missing.

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 only explains what each mode does, without indicating when each mode is appropriate or when not to use the tool. No 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context is given.

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