chatgpt_probe_pro_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it reveals cache validity windows, temporary conversation fallback, the exact prompt sent, indefinite waiting, and that no normal conversation is created. This is strong behavioral transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and every clause provides useful behavioral detail. It is dense and slightly long as a single sentence, but there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers trigger conditions, cache duration, fallback steps, waiting behavior, and return classification. The main gap is the missing semantics for the 'mode' parameter and the absence of error or edge-case handling.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'mode' parameter. It mentions '同模式' but never explains what values mode accepts or how it affects probe behavior. The 'force' parameter is already described in the schema, so no extra value is added there.

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 and resource: '执行 Pro 身份探针' (execute Pro identity probe). It also differentiates itself by describing cache reuse and explicitly noting it does not create a normal conversation, which separates it from sibling chat tools.

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 clearly explains when cached results are reused versus when the probe actually runs, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to choose this probe over capabilities/status-related siblings.

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