device_probe

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

Without annotations, the description explains response behavior: ping returns stats and reachable (null if parsing fails), other actions return raw output, and ok indicates command execution status. It also clarifies that connectivity is determined via parsed.reachable. This provides substantial transparency about expected outputs, though it doesn't address side effects 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?

The description is concise, starting with the core purpose and action list, then adding conditions for ping/tracert and response interpretation. It's efficient but could be better structured with explicit sections, though it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain all parameters, doesn't provide usage examples or comparisons with siblings, and only partially describes returns. An agent would need to infer several aspects, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must clarify parameters. It only explains destination (required for ping/tracert) and count (1-100), and mentions login params are same as device_exec. It leaves target, topo_path, and new_password unexplained, which is insufficient for an agent to correctly fill all parameters.

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 defines the tool as a device connectivity and status query tool, enumerating specific actions (ping, tracert, interfaces, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like device_exec which executes arbitrary commands, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a condition for ping/tracert requiring destination and mentions login parameters are shared with device_exec, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It implies usage for network diagnostics but leaves the decision to the agent.

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