figure_library_network_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the scope caveat: it reads process-level user/machine proxy config and does not verify actual forwarding. That is a genuinely useful warning against over-interpreting the result. It stops short of saying what is returned or whether config comes from env vars vs. OS settings.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope up front and the limitation trailing as a semicolon clause — every element earns its place. Slightly terse phrasing ('this process's') borders on cryptic but stays readable.

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 no-param read-only probe this covers the essential caveat, and there is no output schema to explain. However, an agent cannot tell what the response actually contains (proxy URLs? env keys? empty when unset?), which matters for a status-inspection 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. Nothing misleading is said about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('this process's current user/machine proxy configuration'), which is narrower and more concrete than the tool name's generic 'network status'. It is distinguishable from figure_library_network_test mainly through the caveat sentence, though it never names that sibling directly.

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 phrase 'does not prove forwarding' implies when this tool is insufficient and implicitly points to a connectivity test, but the alternative (figure_library_network_test) is never named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing is given.

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