opspilot_probe_remote

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does not expose stored values, which is helpful, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the broker is not ready, or what the output format is. The 'verify' phrasing implies a check, but details are sparse.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and a key behavioral constraint. It contains no filler or redundant information, maximally efficient for the content it conveys.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose but omits important operational details such as the returned result, error conditions, and any prerequisites (e.g., broker location). Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and per the guidelines, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none, but it does provide context that the tool avoids exposing values, which aligns with having no inputs. This matches the 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 function: 'Verify the broker is ready for a remote connection' with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('broker'). The added constraint 'without exposing stored values' distinguishes it from other tools and clarifies its safety-conscious design.

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 usage when you need to confirm broker readiness for remote connections without exposing sensitive data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, leaving the decision partially to the agent's inference.

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