resilient_http_probe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: exponential backoff, jittered retries, timeout isolation, and header anti-bot rotation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The payment note (0.01 USDC) is a cost disclosure, which is useful. It doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key features. The payment note is appended clearly. It's concise and every phrase adds value, though the parenthetical payment note could be seen as slightly extraneous for tool selection.

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 complexity (HTTP/S request engine with retries, backoff, anti-bot), the description provides a good overview but lacks details on input format, expected output, and failure behavior. There's no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it doesn't. The payment requirement is disclosed, which is important context.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides—'payload' is described as input parameters or JSON string, and 'paymentSignature' is described as a payment signature. The description's mention of HTTP/S request engine implies the payload contains request details, but it doesn't explicitly map parameters to the described behavior.

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 identifies the tool as an HTTP/S request engine with specific robustness features (exponential backoff, jittered retries, timeout isolation, header anti-bot rotation). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a network request tool, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The verb 'probe' and the feature list make the purpose clear.

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 making HTTP/S requests that need resilience, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scrape_html_headless_fallback or bypass_cf_clearance_detector. The mention of anti-bot rotation suggests a use case, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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