proxy_info

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

With no annotations, the description falls short in disclosing behavioral traits. It does not confirm the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or is safe to call repeatedly. The description only states what is returned, not how it behaves.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action 'Return the proxy URL'.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (proxy URL and hints). It could specify the format or structure of hints, but is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema covers everything. Baseline score of 4 applies; the description is not required to add parameter semantics.

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 returns the proxy URL and copy-paste hints for environment variables and git config. It uses specific verbs ('Return') and resources ('proxy URL', 'env vars', 'git config'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions like setting or starting proxies.

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 the agent needs to view proxy information or configuration hints, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'show_config' or 'set_git_proxy'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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