ensure_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly explains the two-step behavior: direct attempt first, then proxy launch and verification. It also mentions the return values (status + proxy URL). However, it does not detail any potential side effects or authentication requirements.

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 only. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains the failover algorithm. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key action.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the core behavior (direct then proxy) and return values. It lacks details on the exact format of 'status' and 'proxy URL', but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 description coverage is 100% with the single 'target' parameter already described. The description adds context about defaulting to first configured target, which reinforces the schema but does not add new semantic value beyond it.

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 tool's action ('Ensure') and resource ('target host is reachable'), and describes the specific fallback logic (direct check then proxy). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'check' which might just do a basic check.

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 the tool should be used when one wants to verify host reachability with automatic proxy fallback, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check', 'proxy_info', or 'status'.

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