http_probe

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: single request, default HTTPS, return fields, and redirect chain. However, it omits error handling, rate limits, and scope enforcement details.

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?

Two sentences, dense with information, first sentence front-loads the action and return fields, second clarifies input flexibility. No 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?

The description covers the core functionality and return values adequately for a simple tool, but lacks details on error cases, prerequisites, or scope handling that would be expected given no annotations or output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the target parameter (bare host vs full URL, default https) but does not explicitly describe method, verify_tls, or follow_redirects. The return fields hint at some behavior.

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 sends a single HTTP request and returns a structured result including specific fields. It distinguishes itself as 'the primary building block for web recon' among siblings like fingerprint or content_discovery.

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 implies usage for basic HTTP probing but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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