prepare_probe

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the annotations already signal a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the token is one-time and the plan is exact, which are not present in the schema or annotations. It does not mention token expiration or authorization requirements, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 front-loaded sentence contains no filler. Every word contributes: 'exact' scopes the plan, 'discovered-command' ties to discovery, and 'one-time approval token' captures the security-relevant output.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, and the input schema covers all four parameters. The main gap is workflow order: the description never tells the agent that prepare_probe should be called after discover_profile and before execute_probe, which is important for selecting among the eight sibling tools.

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%, so each parameter already carries a meaningful description and baseline is 3. The tool description does not repeat or add parameter-level meaning beyond calling the artifact a 'discovered-command plan', which loosely ties to candidate_id without explaining formats or constraints.

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 verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('an exact discovered-command plan and a one-time approval token'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling actions like execute_probe, discover_profile, or run_preflight. An agent can tell this is the preparation step without opening schemas.

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 'discovered-command plan' and 'approval token' implies this sits after discovery and before execution, so the usage context is inferable. However, it never explicitly says 'use before execute_probe' or names conditions where an alternative should be chosen.

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