rescue_probe

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the recommendation is based on actually known data and is in human language, and the term diagnostics implies non-destructive behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it may have, or what happens on failure.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence summarizes the tool, and the second clarifies the relationship to device_capabilities and the added recommendation. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 gives a clear purpose, names a relevant alternative, and the presence of an output schema covers return-value structure. However, with no annotations and no parameter explanations, the agent still lacks guidance on how to supply serial or hints and when exactly to prefer this tool over device_capabilities, leaving the definition only minimally 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain serial, model_hint, or manufacturer_hint at all. Their names and defaults hint at their roles, but the description provides no guidance on how they affect the diagnostic report or recommendation, which is a significant gap for an invocation-focused tool.

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 that rescue_probe performs full recovery diagnostics plus a human-language recommendation, and it explicitly says it produces the same report as device_capabilities with an added concrete next-step suggestion. This distinguishes it from a named sibling tool and makes its purpose immediately understandable.

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 names device_capabilities as the alternative and clarifies the deciding factor: choose rescue_probe when a recommendation is needed in addition to the standard capability report. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention prerequisites, but the comparison provides clear contextual guidance.

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