generate_transfer_probe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only discloses that it returns a blueprint, but does not explain whether it has side effects, requires a particular session state, or what the blueprint contains beyond a label. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety annotations.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it efficient for the agent to parse.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter documentation, the description should compensate with more detail about what a blueprent includes, how it relates to the session, and any relevant constraints. The current text leaves critical gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the two parameters (session_id and node_id). Even though the schema has titles and one default, the description does not explain their roles, formats, or relationships, leaving the agent to guess.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'transfer-probe blueprint', specifying the four blueprint types (near / variation / far / integrated). This is specific enough to distinguish it from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other generation tools like generate_assessment or generate_diagnostic.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., a valid session) or indicate that node_id is optional. No mention of prefering this over record_transfer_result or other transfer-related tools is provided.

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