qa_probe_run_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, whether it is read-only, or any other behavioral traits beyond triggering the pipeline.

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: a functional statement and a usage example. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the example could be seen as slightly redundant.

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 the high-level function and usage, but lacks details on output format, whether the pipeline is synchronous, error handling, or any prerequisites. Given the absence of an output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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% for the single parameter (headless). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 triggers a full qa-probe pipeline (analyze + probe + report) and returns a summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual steps like qa_probe_explain_failure or qa_probe_get_blast_radius.

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 a usage example ("Ask: 'Run a full QA check and give me the summary.'"), which implies when to use. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context of the full pipeline vs. individual tools makes the distinction clear.

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