hb_api_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'Probe'. It does not disclose whether this makes network requests, requires auth, is read-only or destructive, rate limits, or what it returns. 'Using all strategies' hints at exhaustive behavior but nothing concrete.

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 with no waste. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for an unannotated tool.

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?

For a network-probing tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and an unclear relationship to hb_api_discover, the description is far too thin. It omits safety profile, auth needs, return shape, and when it differs from its sibling.

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 the schema already documents both 'url' and 'strategies'. The description adds the names of the four default strategies, which is slightly useful context, but no format or interaction details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Probe) and resource (URL), and enumerates the strategies applied. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like hb_api_discover, but the description never explains how 'probe' relates to 'discover', leaving the agent to guess whether they overlap or differ in scope.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the clearly related sibling hb_api_discover. The agent has no basis for choosing this tool over hb_api_discover or the other hb_api_* tools.

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