HTTP probe

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world safety. The description adds behavioral transparency by stating it follows redirects and may make HTTP requests to a given URL, with no side effects indicated, and the param note clarifies scheme defaulting.

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 one tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the key outputs. The parameter note is also concise and useful.

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 probe tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the key behavioral context: redirects, final status, timing, and security headers. No major gaps are visible.

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 url parameter is fully described, including that bare hostnames are accepted and https:// is assumed when no scheme is provided. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only names the parameter and marks it required.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an HTTP probe that follows redirects and reports status, timing, and security headers. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the DNS, TLS, and RDAP siblings.

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 use case is implied by the description—investigating HTTP endpoint responses and security headers—but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over dns_lookup, tls_certificate, or ip_rdap, nor any exclusions.

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