machine_probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond purpose—no mention of network probe behavior, failure modes, or timeout effects—but 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?

A single sentence front-loads the core action and scope before enumerating accepted selectors. Every element contributes to selecting or invoking the tool; there is no 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only probe, the description identifies the target, the operation, and the selector format. It does not specify the output shape or the default timeout, but the term 'health and latency' provides adequate expectation, and no output schema exists to fill the gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description usefully explains that 'machine' can be an id, name, hostname, alias, IP address, or host:port. The optional timeout_ms is not described textually, but its name and min/max bounds carry most of the meaning.

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 states a clear action ('check health and latency') and a precisely scoped resource ('one registered remote machine'), with a detailed selection criteria list. It is specific enough to be usable, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling machine_status, which could overlap on health reporting.

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 when to use this tool: when a single registered remote machine needs health/latency checking. It does not state exclusions or point to alternative tools such as machine_status, machines_list, or machine_read, so an agent has to infer the routing decision.

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