get_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a critical behavior: if the modality is compromised/unavailable, it returns a notice and alternatives. This is transparent and prevents accidental misuse. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second handles edge case, third emphasizes importance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key edge case, but lacks parameter explanations and normal return format details. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (dysfunction_id, modality) beyond mentioning 'specific diagnostic modality'. The enum values are not elaborated, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Elicitation content') and resource ('specific diagnostic modality'), and distinguishes behavior when the modality is compromised, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_dysfunction' or 'list_dysfunctions'.

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 when to use (to get probe content), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives. The edge case of compromised modalities is covered, but no general guidance.

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