aegis_probe

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent nothing persists, and the description usefully adds what is exercised (secrets, writes, network, child processes) — implying sandboxed real execution rather than static inspection. However it does not disclose runtime cost, whether a sandbox/container is required, or how failures surface, which matter for a probe that actually attempts forbidden operations.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and lists the probed surface compactly. No filler, though the terseness leaves no room for the routing/behavioral detail the tool would benefit from.

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?

With zero required params and a fully documented schema the call mechanics are covered, but there is no output schema and the description never says what a probe returns (pass/fail per boundary? a report?) or how long it takes. For a verification tool whose value is its results, that is a meaningful gap.

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%; both 'profile' and 'project' are documented in the schema, including the default profile semantics. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a concrete action (empirically test a profile's boundary enforcement) and enumerates the boundary classes checked: secrets, writes, network, child processes. It is clearly distinct from lifecycle siblings like aegis_apply/aegis_discard, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with aegis_scan.

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 phrase 'test in practice' implies this is the runtime verification counterpart to a static check, but the description never states when to prefer this over aegis_scan or aegis_run, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an existing profile). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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