probe_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It explains the tool listens to the live mesh for a configurable duration and returns the schema, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is nondestructive or any side effects.

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 well-structured with a clear overview followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 that an output schema likely describes the return format, the description appropriately focuses on the tool's operation and purpose. It covers what is discovered and how the results can be used, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema: it explains 'seconds' as listening duration (default 8) and 'event' as the mesh event to sniff (default 'broadcast'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 listens to the live mesh and reports the service's data schema, specifying events, fields, types, ranges, and examples. It distinguishes itself by noting that other sibling tools (autowire_buffer, lint_against_traffic, infer_layout) can use the discovered data, making its purpose unique.

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 explicitly advises running this tool first before using related tools like autowire_buffer, lint_against_traffic, and infer_layout, providing clear usage context. While it doesn't specify when not to use it, the context is sufficient.

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