chatgpt_probe_pro_identity

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it reuses cached results within 30 minutes, creates a temporary chat and switches to 'Pro' when cache is absent, waits indefinitely, and returns a classification. It also clarifies it does not create a normal conversation, which is important side-effect information.

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 dense sentence that efficiently packs the purpose, caching behavior, fallback steps, and return value. It is well-structured with semicolons and contains no wasteful filler.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain side effects and return values; it does so by specifying the returned classification and the non-creation of normal chats. However, it omits potential failure modes or timeout behavior despite '无限等待' (wait indefinitely), leaving some ambiguity.

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 description adds minimal clarification for the 'mode' parameter by mentioning '同模式' (same mode) in the cache context, but it does not define acceptable values or format. The 'force' parameter is already described in the schema, so the description does not improve on it. Given 50% schema coverage, more compensation was needed.

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: '执行 Pro 身份探针' (execute Pro identity probe), and details the steps: reuse cache, else create temp chat, switch to Pro, send a specific question, and wait. It differentiates from siblings by noting it does not create normal conversations.

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 its use for verifying Pro identity but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternative chat tools. It mentions default caching behavior and that it creates a temporary conversation only when no cache exists, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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