apiauth_probe

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 discloses that an HTTP call is made and that the Authorization header can be omitted, but it does not disclose the HTTP method, whether this is read-only or has side effects, or how responses are returned.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about what a probe returns (e.g., status code, headers, or body) and what the operational impact is. For a network-calling tool this is a notable gap.

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 descriptions already cover both params (URL and Bearer token) at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the relationship between the token parameter and the Authorization header, which is helpful but not extensive.

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?

States the verb 'Call' and the resource 'URL', and specifies the key variant: with or without Authorization header. It is a clear action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from apiauth_status or apiauth_matrix.

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 phrase 'with/without Authorization header' implies a comparison use case for testing auth-required endpoints. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose apiauth_probe over the siblings apiauth_status or apiauth_matrix.

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