Llm Probe Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by explaining that it catalogs probe families, what each tests, and grading methodology, which goes beyond the structured annotations. It also implies a non-execution role, complementing the read-only nature. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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 no-parameter catalog tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It explains the content (probe families, tests, grading) and even gives strategic advice. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional parameter information is required or expected.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List the LLM probe families, what each tests, and how findings are graded.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('LLM probe families'), distinguishing it from execution tools like llm_redteam. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 description explicitly instructs 'Read this before running llm_redteam,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also advises on selecting probes by impact, giving actionable context for how to use the information. This differentiates it from alternatives and leaves no inference required.

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