prtg_list_probes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' signals a read-only enumeration, and the note about probe ids implies the returned objects include an id field. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or any access requirements, but it is not misleading or contradictory.

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?

Two tightly-written sentences earn their place: the first defines the resource being listed, and the second states the chaining relationship to related tools. There is no filler or redundant schema restatement.

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 simple list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the entity, the probe id's downstream value, and does not omit anything needed to invoke the tool correctly. An explicit alternative to prtg_get_probe would improve it, but it is not critical.

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 100%, meaning all four parameters (limit, filter, offset, sort_by) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('List') and the resource ('probes'), and adds a helpful definition of what probes are. It also mentions that probe ids chain into other tools, which situates this tool among siblings, but it stops short of explicitly contrasting it with prtg_get_probe for single-object retrieval.

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 chaining sentence implies when to use this tool: obtain probe ids first, then feed them into prtg_get_probe, prtg_get_probe_network_info, or prtg_get_object_sensor_summary. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose instead.

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