apache_probe

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the response body is not downloaded, making this a lightweight check. It says nothing about timeouts, failure behavior, or what the probe returns on an unhealthy endpoint.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the [READ] marker and the verb, with no filler. Every word (health URL, without downloading body) carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what a probe returns (status code, reachability boolean), but it does not. Combined with the undocumented 'target' parameter, an agent cannot fully predict inputs or outputs for this tool.

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% for the single optional 'target' parameter, and the description does not explain what 'target' means (URL override? host name? default to the configured health URL?). The description does imply a default configured URL exists, which is a small amount of meaning beyond the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: GET the configured health URL, with the [READ] tag reinforcing the operation type. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as apache_server_status or apache_access_status, which also report server health.

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 guidance on when to choose this over sibling status tools like apache_server_status or apache_access_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the phrase 'configured health URL' alone.

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