Is it me or them? (local + global probes)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc., indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that it runs tests from local and global probes and produces a verdict, which aligns with annotations but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authorization needs, or what happens on failure. The annotation coverage is sufficient, and the description adds modest operational context.

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 two sentences long with no unnecessary words. The title front-loads the core idea. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the mechanism, the second states a mode constraint. Perfectly concise.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description mentions a 'verdict' but does not explain what the verdict looks like or how to interpret it. For a diagnostic tool that combines local and remote results, this is a notable gap. The input schema is simple, but the output behavior is incompletely described.

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 descriptions for both parameters (target and locations). The description's mention of 'Globalping's worldwide probes' provides slight additional context for the locations parameter, but overall the schema does most of the work. The description does not add new meaning beyond the 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 runs reachability tests from both local and global probes and provides a verdict on whether failure is local, network/ISP, or target. The title 'Is it me or them?' further clarifies the diagnostic purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like net_ping or http_probe by the comparative local-global approach.

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 diagnosing connectivity issues from both perspectives, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions being disabled in --local-only mode, which is a constraint, but no alternatives or context for choosing this over sibling tools.

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