x80_probe

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it executes a package, inspects syscalls, and returns 'a literal next call to make.' However, it does not disclose potential side effects of running an arbitrary package, failure modes, or what happens to the files_in inputs, which matters given the annotations are all false and don't carry a safety profile.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the evidence-based intent is clarified, and the unusual return value is stated directly. The prose earns its place.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, no output schema, and uninformative annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the input file mechanism, timeout behavior, family selection, or the exact structure of the returned 'next call.' The concept is clear but operational detail is largely missing.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. 'Package' vaguely maps to 'program', but args, stdin, family, files_in, and timeout_ms are completely unaddressed, leaving the agent without meaningful parameter guidance for a non-trivial schema.

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 states a specific action—run a package on the cheapest profile—and a distinct outcome: report the OS actually needed based on syscalls. This separates it from the sibling run tools conceptually, though it doesn't name them 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?

The description implies the tool is for OS-need detection from evidence, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference any sibling tools or alternative approaches, so an agent must infer when this probe is preferable to x80_cpm_run, x80_dos_run, or x80_diff_run.

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