qa_probe_probe_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('status') but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects), rate limits, or authorization requirements. Some transparency is present but insufficient without 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?

The description is extremely concise with one sentence and a clarifying example. Every word adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No wasted text.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but omits details about return format, possible status values, or error handling. With no output schema, this gap reduces completeness for a simple probe tool. Adequate but not thorough.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the existing schema descriptions. Baseline 3 applies as description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 live-probes a single endpoint and returns status, with a concrete example question. It differentiates from sibling tools like explain_failure or suggest_fix by focusing on immediate status checking.

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 provides an example question implying real-time probing usage, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or contrast with siblings. It gives context but no formal differentiation or exclusion criteria.

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