probe

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what information the probe yields (format, pages, scanned/digital, content), but does not disclose details like whether it opens remote URLs, handles encrypted files, or what failure modes exist. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single focused sentence with the core verb front-loaded and the informative scope listed after a colon. There is no fluff, repetition, or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse. It tells what the tool identifies but not how the result is structured, how to specify the source, or whether password is required for certain document types. An agent could call it correctly but would not know what to expect back or how to interpret the response.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining 'source' and 'password'. It does not mention either parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what 'source' refers to (path, URL, object ID?) and when password is needed. The parameter names are mildly self-evident but the description adds no semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('a document'), and enumerates concrete aspects: format, pages, scanned/digital status, and content. It clearly conveys the tool's role as an inspection/reconnaissance tool, distinct from siblings like extract or to_markdown, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 this tool is used to get an overview of a document before deeper operations like extraction or reading. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer probe over siblings such as read_page, outline, or extract, and offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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