Egress-verdict probe

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It discloses authorization, cost, and trial constraints, but leaves out what the probe actually does, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the result looks like.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, the term 'five-leg' is unexplained and makes the sentence less informative than its brevity suggests.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should compensate more. It covers authorization and cost but omits endpoint format, probe behavior, and expected return information.

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 single parameter is undocumented. The phrase 'authorized target' weakly ties endpoint to the probe target, but it does not specify the expected format, such as URL, IP address, or hostname.

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 states a specific operation: a five-leg egress probe of an authorized target. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tools fleet_census or verdict_query.

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?

It implies that only authorized targets should be probed and mentions cost and a trial limit, but it does not explain when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No routing guidance against the sibling tools is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses credential scoping and the inclusion of OPEN-EGRESS alerts, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or whether results are paginated or cached.

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 definition is a single fragment that is too terse to convey purpose or behavior; it omits the verb and lacks any structural framing. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how it relates to siblings. It only gives a vague data scope, leaving critical context about output format and usage missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add beyond what the empty schema already provides.

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 is a noun phrase ('Your stored verdicts... with OPEN-EGRESS alerts') that never states a verb or action, and it does not differentiate fleet_census from verdict_query or egress_probe. An agent cannot tell whether this lists, counts, aggregates, or merely returns stored data.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites. The description names the data scope but leaves the agent to infer whether this duplicates verdict_query or should be used alongside egress_probe.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the result is precomputed and signed, costs $0.01, and expires when the fingerprint changes. It still omits auth requirements, what the verdict actually contains, and whether it is a pure read, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and folds cost and invalidation into the same line with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which is a completeness problem, not a conciseness one.

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 two required, undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what a verdict contains, how to obtain a valid fingerprint, or what happens on expiry beyond the word 'EXPIRED'.

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 neither required parameter is documented in the schema. The description only tangentially ties 'fingerprint' to the expiration rule and 'server version' to scope; it never explains what 'endpoint' means or the expected format of either value, so it fails 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 resource ('precomputed signed verdict') and scopes it to 'one exact server version', which is more than a tautology. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer the operation from the tool name alone, and it offers no differentiation from the unrelated siblings egress_probe and fleet_census.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the siblings. The only guidance-adjacent content is the 'EXPIRED on fingerprint change' caveat, which describes invalidation rather than when to call it.

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