Probe Peers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it performs outbound calls to provider APIs, relies on current API keys, applies a selection heuristic, and checks reachability.

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 with no filler and a front-loaded verb, making it easy to scan. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 two simple enum parameters, the description adequately conveys the tool's function and side-effect profile. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns, which is a notable gap given that return values must be inferred from the described actions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention either parameter by name. The enum values are self-explanatory, and the phrase 'provider APIs' hints at the caller parameter, but response_format is never addressed.

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 specific verbs and a clear resource: it queries official provider APIs, discovers available models for the current API keys, selects the highest-capability documented model, and verifies provider reachability. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling session/peer tools, even without naming them.

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 the use case: when an agent needs to know what models are available/authorized under current API keys and whether providers are reachable. However, it provides no explicit comparison to alternatives like ask_peers and no exclusion criteria.

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