probe_live

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: only plain GET requests are made, localhost is always allowed, other hosts require user ownership confirmation, and the authorized flag must only be set after explicit confirmation. This meaningfully informs the agent about safety and consent requirements, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by safety/authorization rules and parameter explanations. There is minor redundancy between the 'authorized' explanation in the prose and the Args section, but overall it is efficient and readable.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, request behavior, ownership authorization, and parameter semantics. With an output schema present and safety annotations already declaring read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 carries the full burden for parameters. It explains url with concrete examples and explains authorized as requiring explicit user confirmation of ownership or permission, which adds real semantic value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's function: passively checking a running deployment for a specific list of issues (secrets, exposed files, open databases, CORS, cookies, headers). The verb 'check' plus the explicit resource and scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_project or scan_snippet.

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 provides strong context for when to use the tool: against a running deployment, using only plain GET requests, and with explicit ownership confirmation for non-localhost hosts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the passive-deployment framing makes the intended use clear.

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