Probe Peers

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool queries provider APIs, selects models, and verifies reachability. This aligns with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentence that combines multiple actions, making it somewhat dense but not well-structured. It lacks front-loading of key information, and every part is necessary but could be more logically organized.

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's complexity (querying, selecting, verifying) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main actions but omits details about the return value, error handling, or parameter usage. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has two parameters ('caller' and 'response_format') with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no explanation of these parameters, leaving their purpose and values ambiguous. The agent must guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 queries provider APIs, discovers models, selects the highest-capability one, and verifies reachability. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that have different purposes, such as 'ask_peers' or 'runtime_capabilities'.

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 usage for probing provider APIs with current keys, but it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'ask_peers'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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