probe_fuzz

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses detailed behavior: generating one valid and several malformed inputs, recording outcomes, latency, and silent acceptance. It explicitly notes destructive tools skipped by default and the safety guard, adding significant context.

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 information-dense in a single sentence, which is efficient but slightly run-on. It front-loads key operations and outcomes, earning its content without significant waste.

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 (fuzzing, safety, multiple outputs), the description covers input generation, calling, outcome recording, default skip behavior, and return value (coverage summary). Minor ambiguity about whether detailed outcomes are returned, but overall sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the safety role of fuzzDestructive and functional role of maxTools and connectionId. It provides context not present in the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 tool's purpose: generate valid and malformed inputs per target tool, call each, and record outcomes. It specifies verb+resource with precise scope, and distinguishes well from sibling tools like probe_connect and probe_lint.

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 explains default behavior (skipping destructive tools) and provides guidance on when to use fuzzDestructive. It implies safety context but does not explicitly state when not to use or describe alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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