probe_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it fails: it does not say whether this is a read-only diagnostic, what it returns, whether it has side effects, or how 'must not run' conflicts are determined. The only faint signal is that the output concerns currently-running conflicting processes.

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?

It is very short, which is a virtue, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy — the single fragment is not front-loaded with a verb and reads as a truncated sentence.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about behavior and return content, and it supplies almost none. An agent cannot predict what it will receive or when calling it is appropriate.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema description coverage is 100% trivially.

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 is a noun phrase with no verb ('The processes that must not run with the probe, running now'), so it never states what the tool actually does — list, check, or report. It gestures at a subject matter (processes conflicting with the probe) but an agent cannot confidently say what action it performs, and it is not distinguished from siblings probe_plan/probe_run.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as probe_plan or probe_run. The agent is left to infer the tool's role entirely from its name.

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