probe_tool_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON with fields probed_content, flagged, and patterns_found, indicating it performs analysis without modifying state. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 highly concise and well-structured, using a version header, a one-line purpose statement, a usage guideline paragraph, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description sufficiently covers its purpose, usage, parameters, and output. It could be considered complete for an analysis tool, though it might optionally mention that it does not modify data.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'content' as 'The external content to probe' and 'source_label' as 'Human-readable label for logging'. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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's verb ('Probe') and resource ('external tool result') with a specific purpose ('for injection patterns'). It distinguishes from siblings by describing a unique security-related operation, which is not evident in any sibling tool name.

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 says when to use this tool ('Call this before inserting any externally-sourced content into agent context') and provides concrete examples of such content (web scrapes, RSS items, PDF extracts, YouTube transcripts, GitHub readmes). It lacks alternative tool references or explicit exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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