Component link health

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Probe' confirms a read operation. It adds specific behavioral context (checking externaltox paths and missing files) that goes beyond annotations, though it omits details like resource impact or error handling.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. However, sacrificing parameter information limits its effectiveness for a 2-parameter 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should hint at return values or diagnostic information, but it does not. It also fails to explain key terms like 'externaltox paths' or how results are presented, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters ('paths' and 'parent_path'), and the tool description does not explain their meaning or usage. This forces the agent to infer their roles from the tool name and default values, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 uses the verb 'Probe' and specifies the resource 'live COMPs' and the aspects 'externaltox paths' and 'missing linked component files'. This clearly indicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like 'inspect_component_manifest' which focus on other aspects.

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 checking component link health but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any prerequisites or scenarios.

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