ru_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses that the probe is read-only, that only one handshake per pair is performed (low-impact, bounded), that the source host is only read and nothing changes there, and that resolution is forced via --resolve rather than DNS. It omits timing/timeout behavior and error handling, keeping it short of a 5.

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 core question is front-loaded and the total length is reasonable for the amount of mechanism conveyed. It is dense with parentheticals and environment-variable names, which makes it a heavy read, but almost every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return verdicts (ok | partial | blocked-ru | down) and explains what each means, including the DPI/TSPU inference behind blocked-ru. It leaves secondary gaps — probe duration, timeout/failure behavior when a vantage host is unreachable — that an agent planning around this call would want.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it ties MIA_PROBE_FROM/MIA_PROBE_IFACES/MIA_PROBE_CONTROL to the probing model, clarifies that 'ifaces' are ISPs and that 'from' is read-only, and explains that address resolution is forced rather than DNS-driven. That is genuine semantic value over the schema text.

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?

Opens with a precise, specific question — whether an address is reachable from Russia or any censored network — and immediately names the mechanism (per-ISP TLS handshake plus datacenter control). The scope is narrow and distinctive enough that an agent would not confuse it with generic siblings like host_net_check or host_ports.

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?

States a clear usage context: it is the gate to run before and after any address switch (ingress, new node), and it instructs rolling DNS back first when the verdict is blocked-ru. It gives strong context but never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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