qa_probe_explain_failure

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

With no annotations, the description clearly indicates this is a read-only diagnostic tool that generates plain English explanations. It does not mention any destructive actions or side effects. Could add that it does not modify data, but the intent is clear.

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 two sentences with a concrete example. No fluff, every word earns its place. Front-loaded with the purpose, immediately followed by usage guidance.

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 simple input (one path string) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how to invoke it. It could mention that the response is an explanation string, but it's sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in the probe suite.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter described as 'Frontend route path'. The tool description adds an example ('/rules') but does not provide semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: explaining why a frontend route shows no data or is failing. It provides a concrete example ('Why is /rules showing no data?'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like qa_probe_get_blast_radius or qa_probe_suggest_fix, which have different purposes.

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 tells when to use the tool (to explain route failures) and includes a sample user query. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies their distinct use cases.

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