proxy_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions auto-generation of CA certificate and returns outputs but omits important behavioral traits: that the proxy runs until stopped, potential network interception, need for target device setup, or cleanup of temporary certificates. The disclosure is partial.

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 one efficient sentence that immediately states the action and lists the returned items. No redundant words; well front-loaded.

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 the tool starts a long-running proxy with 6 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools (e.g., proxy_stop, proxy_start_transparent), the description lacks lifecycle context (how to stop, relationship to transparent mode) and does not clarify that a target device must be configured. Adequate for basic use but incomplete for nuanced decision-making.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for any parameter. For example, it doesn't explain how 'capture_profile' or 'max_disk_mb' affect behavior beyond what schema says.

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 starts an HTTPS MITM proxy with auto-generated CA certificate and lists key outputs (port, URL, cert fingerprint, setup instructions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like proxy_start_transparent by focusing on the standard proxy mode.

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 use when starting a standard MITM proxy but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like proxy_start_transparent, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. No alternatives are mentioned.

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