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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the two possible result strings. It says nothing about whether probing has side effects, what permissions are required, whether the result is cached, or what happens on error – critical for a tool whose output gates a subsequent destructive exit.

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 extremely short and front-loads the key noun phrase, which is good, but it is telegraphic to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely economical. The two outcome tokens are useful, yet the surrounding sentence fragments omit needed context.

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 workflow tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine sequencing relative to exit_execute/exit_sweep or interpret the result tokens from this text alone.

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 0% and the description adds no information about service_id – not its format, whether it accepts names or IDs, or whether it can reference multiple services. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (probe) and resource (dependencies) and exposes its two outcome states (SAFE-TO-EXIT / DEPENDENTS-FOUND), which hints at its role in an exit workflow. However, it never states plainly what is being probed (service dependents?) or how it relates to the sibling exit_* tools, leaving the agent to infer the purpose from the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The agent is not told that this should run before exit_execute, nor how it differs from exit_rejoin_check or exit_verify_receipt, so sibling selection rests entirely on name matching.

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