probe_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return values (TTFT, latency, throughput, health status) and states it probes a model, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., real API call) or safety properties (read-only vs. destructive). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, each carrying essential information: first sentence states purpose and parameters, second sentence clarifies usage context and return values. No redundancy.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and usage context. It could mention that the tool makes a live API call, but overall completeness is high for a simple diagnostic 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'provider and model name' generically.

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 uses a specific verb ('Probe') and explicitly states the resource ('single LLM model by provider and model name'). It also distinguishes from siblings (probe_all, list_providers) by noting ad-hoc single-model use without a config file.

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 clearly recommends use for 'ad-hoc checks without a config file', implying when to use this tool. Sibling names (probe_all, list_providers, get_config) provide contrast, but no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are given.

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