proxy_get_session_handshakes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. The word 'summarize' hints at non-destructive behavior, but no details are given.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured with additional details.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the output format or the meaning of the summary, leaving agents underinformed.

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 50%, leaving limit, offset, and sort undocumented. The description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the gap. It does not explain how these parameters affect the summary.

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 summarizes TLS handshake/fingerprint availability (JA3/JA4/JA3S) for session exchanges, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxy_get_tls_fingerprints and proxy_get_session_exchange. However, it does not define 'availability' precisely.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks prerequisites, use-case context, or exclusions. With no annotations, the description must provide this, but it does not.

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