status

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

The description mentions 'best-effort' for the running check, indicating potential inaccuracy, and lists the three reported aspects. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or other traits like performance impact.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word serves a clear function with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description could have elaborated on the return format or interpretation of results (e.g., what 'configured targets' means). It is adequate but lacks details that would help an agent fully use the output.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 reports proxy status including process running status, port openness, and configured targets. It specifies a verb ('report') and resource ('proxy status'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'proxy_info' or '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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check' or 'proxy_info'. The description only states what it does without usage context.

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