probe_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses a single fetch, an honest wallcheck user agent, and explicit outcome classes including RATE_LIMITED. It still omits operational details such as HTTP method, redirect behavior, and exactly how timeout affects the request.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted phrasing. It efficiently packs the action, user-agent behavior, and classification outcomes.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully names the return classifications plus wall vendor and evidence codes. However, it leaves the timeout parameter unexplained and provides no sibling routing, so it is only minimally complete for a network probe 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%, so the description should compensate for both parameters. It implies the URL parameter through 'Fetch a URL once', but the timeout parameter is never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a URL once') and states the classification output, so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'classify' tool, leaving some ambiguity about when this probe is preferred.

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 usage by saying it classifies what an agent hits, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to siblings such as audit, classify, or scan_exposure. An agent must infer the selection criteria.

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