HTTP probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds value by detailing the output fields (redirect chain, timing breakdown), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('GET a URL') and enumerates outputs efficiently. No extraneous words.

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?

With one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately lists the return components (status, redirect chain, server header, timing breakdown). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect, though additional details on error handling or formatting could improve it.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'url' described as 'URL to probe'. The description adds that the tool performs a GET request, but this is implied by the tool's name and purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already covers the parameter fully.

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 a specific verb 'GET' and resource 'URL', and lists exactly what is reported (status, redirect chain, server header, timing breakdown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup or tcp_port_check which perform different diagnostics.

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 HTTP probing but provides no explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tls_inspect or net_diagnose. No when-not or exclusionary context is given.

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