interceptor_spawn

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that traffic routes through MITM proxy, but lacks details on command execution behavior (e.g., synchronous vs asynchronous, output handling) and required proxy state.

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, no fluff. First sentence front-loads the core purpose; second adds key behavioral context. Highly efficient.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, description covers the basic purpose and one behavioral aspect, but omits critical details like return value, error handling, and dependency on proxy being active. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Input schema provides full coverage for all parameters. Description adds value by listing specific env variables (HTTP_PROXY, HTTPS_PROXY, etc.) and indicating there are more, enhancing parameter understanding beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it spawns a command with proxy env vars pre-configured. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on running arbitrary commands with proxy settings, unlike browser or Android specific tools.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for running commands through the proxy, but does not mention alternatives or prerequisites like ensuring the proxy is running.

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