gauge_proxy_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral traits: the call is automatically recorded as a trace, and the result includes the target tool's response and call metrics. However, it does not mention potential side effects on the target server or any permission requirements, which remains a gap for a proxy that could invoke arbitrary tools.

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, compact sentence in Japanese that front-loads the main purpose, then adds trace recording and result content. No unnecessary words or repetition; every clause earns its place.

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 proxy tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value structure (target response and metrics) and the automatic trace recording. It gives enough context to use the tool safely, though it could mention that the target tool's effects depend on the specific tool invoked, but this is not a critical omission.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats that the call goes through gauge_connect, which is already in the session_id parameter description.

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 action (calls a target MCP server's tool) and the resource (through a gauge_connect session). It inherently distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool that proxies tool calls, while others manage connections or perform lint/compare/evaluate/report functions.

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 phrase 'gauge_connectで確立した接続を通じて' provides clear context that this tool is to be used after establishing a connection with gauge_connect. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, leaving room for more direct comparative guidance.

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