probe_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well for the safety profile: it declares the operation read-only, forbids free-form command input, and enumerates the fixed template names. It stops short of covering failure modes (unknown probe name), auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the purpose and the key constraint front-loaded, no repetition. Emphatic capitalization and the phrase 'by law' are colorful but not wasteful since they reinforce the hard constraint.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and input constraints but says nothing about the shape of the returned probe results or whether probes run in parallel. Adequate to invoke, thin on what to expect back.

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 coverage is 0% and the probes array is an unconstrained string list, so the description's enumeration of valid probe names (identity, uptime, disk, memory, services) is essential information the schema lacks. It does not clarify what happens if 'probes' is omitted, given only 'target' is required, nor does it define what counts as a 'declared' target.

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?

States a specific verb ('run read-only probes') and a specific resource/scope ('a DECLARED target over its declared channel'), plus names the concrete probe templates available. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fleet_snapshot and policy_evaluate by being per-target and read-only, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 word 'DECLARED' hints that the target must already exist (presumably from target_list), which is a useful prerequisite signal, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as fleet_snapshot for fleet-wide reads. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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