probe_report

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, indicating possible side effects. The description adds context about running optional fuzz and defaults, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like destruction, auth needs, or rate limits beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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?

One sentence efficiently lists all actions and output components with no filler. Every part earns its place; it is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (Markdown report with overall score, letter grade, per-dimension breakdown, findings, fuzz table). It also covers optional fuzz behavior and defaults, making the tool's behavior complete for selection and invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., fuzz triggers behavioral fuzzer) but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions and defaults.

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 verb ('run introspect + lint + fuzz') and the resource ('the target'), specifies the output ('Markdown report with score, grade, breakdown, findings, fuzz table'), and distinguishes from siblings by combining multiple operations into one.

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 that fuzz is optional via 'when requested' and gives a default for fuzz. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus individual sibling tools (e.g., probe_lint, probe_fuzz) or provide any exclusions or alternatives.

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