api_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but the only behavioral claim is the vague word 'safe'. It does not clarify whether arbitrary methods can still cause mutations, what the response looks like, how max_bytes affects the response, authentication requirements, or error behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase carries meaning, but it is so brief that it sacrifices critical behavioral and parameter context.

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, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is too thin. It omits return semantics, the meaning of 'safe', response size behavior, header usage, and explicit guidance for choosing between this and sibling tools. An agent could select the tool but would not know what to expect from calling it.

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, but it only adds minimal meaning: 'path' is an API path and 'method' can be anything. The headers and max_bytes parameters are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and interaction with the request.

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 identifies a specific action ('Probe') and resource ('API path') and stresses that any HTTP method is accepted. The 'any method' qualifier distinguishes it from the fixed-method sibling tools (api_get, api_post, etc.), though 'probe' is somewhat generic and does not fully define the operation's outcome.

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 'with any method (safe)' implies this tool is for flexible or non-standard HTTP method probing, contrasting with the specific method siblings. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over api_get/api_post/etc., nor does it mention exclusions or caveats for potentially destructive methods.

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