freshprobe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates the read-only nature ('Check') and describes the return value structure ('verdict with pass/fail evaluation'), but lacks information on potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a freshness policy.

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 consists of exactly two sentences with zero extraneous words: the first defines the operation and target, the second describes the return value. This front-loaded structure efficiently communicates core functionality without repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 parameters, no nested objects, 100% schema coverage), the description adequately covers the basic operation and return type. However, for a policy-dependent tool with no output schema, it lacks explanation of what freshness policies are, how they're configured, or the structure of the pass/fail verdict returned.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('the URL to check' and 'name of the freshness policy'), the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description references these concepts implicitly ('endpoint', 'named freshness policy') but adds no additional semantic value regarding parameter formats, valid policy name patterns, or URL requirements beyond the schema definitions.

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 action ('Check'), target ('an endpoint'), and specific mechanism ('against a named freshness policy'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'freshprobe_check' by specifying policy-based evaluation. However, it does not explicitly clarify the distinction from 'freshprobe_batch' or when to prefer policy-based checking over direct checking.

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?

While the description implies usage by mentioning policy-based evaluation, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'freshprobe_check' or 'freshprobe_batch', nor does it state prerequisites such as the need to pre-define freshness policies in the system.

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