provider_probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a compatibility check on a configured provider/model, but it does not disclose whether the probe performs live network requests, its latency/cost, or how to interpret a positive versus negative result.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and the decision criteria front-loaded. It wastes no words, though the extreme brevity is arguably the source of the definition's gaps.

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?

For a read-only diagnostic with no output schema, an agent would benefit from knowing what the probe returns or when to reach for it over provider_refresh. The description conveys the purpose but leaves the parameter meanings and result interpretation unstated.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It alludes to a "provider/model" pairing but never explains that `id` identifies the provider (required) while `modelId` optionally narrows the probe to a specific model.

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 gives a specific verb ("Probe") and resource ("configured provider/model") and states exactly what it determines — whether the endpoint accepts Responses or requires Chat Completions compatibility. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as provider_refresh or provider_model_override.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The diagnostic intent is only implied by the verb "Probe" rather than stated as a condition for selection.

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