ffv2_probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: output is 'bounded' (limited in size/scope) and the input must be 'approved', suggesting an authorization precondition. It does not say what happens on an unapproved path, whether errors are returned, or what 'bounded' actually limits.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, so it is structurally efficient. But brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being front-loaded with the essentials an agent needs. The Bengali text also sits oddly against the English tool names and sibling set, which adds avoidable parsing friction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the definition still leaves the core input semantics and the 'approved input' precondition unexplained. For a tool whose only parameter is undocumented in the schema, the description should carry that burden and does not. The relationship to the surrounding ffv2_* workflow (probe before submit/plan) is also absent.

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 single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning at all and the description must compensate. It does not: it never says whether the path is relative or absolute, what root it is resolved against, what file types are valid, or what 'approved' means for a path. This is the clearest gap in the definition.

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 gives a verb (read) and an object ('bounded metadata of an approved local input'), which is more than a restatement of the name 'probe'. However, 'bounded metadata' is undefined jargon and 'approved' is never explained, so an agent cannot tell exactly what data is returned or what makes an input 'approved'. It also does not differentiate itself from siblings such as ffv2_doctor or ffv2_submit.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus ffv2_doctor, ffv2_submit, ffv2_plan, or the job tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only hint is the word 'approved', which implies a precondition but never states it. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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