List My Proxies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the content of the response (remaining GB, login credentials, proxy_id usage), but does not add further behavioral details such as pagination or auth requirements. This meets the lower bar set by rich annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists downstream tools that consume the returned proxy_id, which is immediately useful. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, annotations cover safety, and the description explicitly mentions the output fields (remaining GB, login credentials) and role of proxy_id. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's clear statement of what is returned. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema coverage is 100% and the description need not compensate. The description adds meaning by stating that it lists all proxies on the account, which clarifies the scope without any parameter-specific gaps.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all proxies on your account') with details (remaining GB and login credentials). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_proxy_catalog and list_proxy_locations by specifying 'your account' and the downstream use of proxy_id.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to get proxy_id values for use with get_proxy_usage, rotate_proxy, set_proxy_targeting, and generate_proxy_endpoint. It gives clear context without explicitly saying when not to use alternatives like list_proxy_catalog, so a 4 is appropriate.

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