borrowip_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral traits: tests SOCKS5 port openness and internet reachability, has a 3s timeout, and is non-destructive. The output schema exists so return format explanation is not required. It could mention if the check affects proxy state, but it is likely read-only.

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: three lines of purpose and behavior, plus a separate Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. The key information is 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what it tests, timeout, comparison to a sibling, and parameter behavior. It does not fully explain error conditions or preconditions, but it is adequate for a health-check tool.

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 provides no description for the key parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating 'Optional connection code' and 'If omitted, checks first available proxy', which clarifies the parameter's role and default behavior. More detail on the format of the connection code would improve.

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 it is a 'quick liveness check' for the proxy tunnel, testing if the SOCKS5 port is open and can reach the internet. It distinguishes itself from sibling borrowip_fetch by noting it is much faster (3s vs 30s timeout), and the verb 'check' combined with 'proxy tunnel' makes the resource specific.

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 explicitly states it is faster than borrowip_fetch, guiding agents to use this for quick health checks instead. It also explains when to use the optional key parameter versus omitting it. However, it does not provide guidance for when to use other siblings like borrowip_check_ip or borrowip_status, so it lacks complete exclusion criteria.

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