get_proxy_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must indicate behavior itself. The verb 'Read' clearly communicates a non-mutating, safe operation, and it enumerates the specific data returned (status, usage, gateway credentials). However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether any side effects exist (e.g., logging), but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence of 11 words. It immediately states the action and then lists the key data items. Every word contributes value, with no repetition or filler.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It does mention the three types of data returned. However, it lacks any information about the parameter (proxy_id) and provides no usage guidance, which in the absence of annotations and schema descriptions leaves some gaps for an agent. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema contains one required parameter (proxy_id) with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. While the purpose implies the proxy_id identifies the proxy, it adds no explicit semantics, format, or context beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('a proxy's status, usage, and gateway credentials'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by combining multiple data types in one call, which is unique among the proxy-related tools.

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 implies usage when one needs to fetch status/usage/credentials for a proxy, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so it falls short of a 4.

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