slow_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key trait (intentionally slow) and the safety constraint (lab-only), but says nothing about expected duration, whether it has side effects, or what it returns. It adds real context but leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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?

A single tight sentence with the purpose and the most important constraint (lab-only) front-loaded. No filler, though the terseness is part of why behavioral detail is thin.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need describing, and the tool is low-stakes. Still, for a timing-sensitive probe with zero annotations and an undocumented parameter, more detail on duration and effects would round out the definition.

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 0% and the single 'seconds' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description's emphasis on slowness lets an agent infer that 'seconds' governs the delay, but it never states the unit relationship or default behavior explicitly, so the compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific function: a deliberately slow probe used for timeout and tracing tests. The 'lab-only' qualifier and the emphasis on slowness clearly separate it from diagnostic siblings like host_health and k8s_pod_status, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Names the intended scenarios (timeout and tracing tests) and gives an implicit exclusion via 'lab-only', signaling it should not be run against production systems. It stops short of stating alternative tools to use instead, but the context is clear enough to act on.

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