Http Probe

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations by detailing request volume, rate-limit adherence, rule-pack evaluation, and the need for a headless browser for screenshots. No contradictions with the annotations are present.

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?

Front-loaded purpose and tightly packed behavior details. The 'two scalars' flourish adds slight stylistic bulk, but it does not obscure the meaning.

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?

Provides enough operational context to understand what the probe does, what is evaluated, and what output fields are reported. Since an output schema exists, not spelling out return values is acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters but only addresses screenshots=True. target, ports, max_screenshots, and follow_redirects are left to be inferred from types/defaults.

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?

Clearly states the tool probes hosts for live HTTP services and enumerates the information returned (status, tech, IP, content-length/type). The verb and resource are specific enough to distinguish it from general port/service scanners.

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?

Describes operational behavior (one request per host per scheme, rate limiting, rule-pack evaluation) and hints at use for distinguishing real applications from parked pages. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling scanning tools such as service_scan or port_scan, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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