check_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose (checking availability and exit info) without revealing network behavior, potential side effects, timeouts, or any security implications. The description adds no transparency beyond the purpose.

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, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification, lacking details that would make it genuinely useful. It does not waste words, but it also does not fully earn its place due to missing key information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, some might argue it's complete. But the description fails to mention output shape, usage context, or any conditions (e.g., network dependency). The lack of annotations and usage guidance leaves significant gaps for a tool that seems to perform a network operation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'proxy_url' parameter. It does not explain the expected URL format (e.g., http:// or socks5://), whether the parameter accepts authentication embedded in URL, or any constraints. The description adds no value over the schema's property name.

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 a specific verb ('检测' / check) and resource ('代理 IP' / proxy IP), and specifies the scope (availability and exit information). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like scrape_url or crawl_site, which focus on web content extraction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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