Compare Provider network paths

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral details: the tool runs probes twice (direct and proxy), does not require the Provider group to exist, and never switches nodes. These are not implied by the annotations and help the agent predict side effects and prerequisites.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and adds relevant safety context in the second sentence. There is no redundant or extraneous content; every clause adds value.

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 the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the core behavior and key preconditions (direct vs proxy, no provider group requirement, no node switching). The only notable gap is the lack of config_path semantics, but the tool is still adequately described for most use cases.

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. However, it provides no direct explanation of provider_id or config_path. 'Provider probes' implies provider_id identifies the provider, but config_path is entirely omitted. The description only offers implicit, partial meaning, relying on schema property titles for the rest.

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 specific action: 'Run the configured Provider probes once over a direct connection and once through the current macOS system-proxy path.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnose_environment or run_health_check by focusing on comparing direct vs proxy paths. The verb and resource are concrete and unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: it is read-only, does not require the Provider group to exist, and never switches nodes. This implies it is safe for connectivity diagnostics without preparation or side effects. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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