probe_document_readback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Collect a low-level COM readback manifest') without any details on side effects, permissions, whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no document is open, or what the manifest contains. The description is a tautological restatement of the purpose, adding no behavioral context beyond the name.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is so sparse that it under-specifies the tool's behavior, and the conciseness comes at the cost of essential detail. The sentence earns its place but does not go far enough to be considered well-structured for an agent's decision-making.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what a 'readback manifest' is, what the output format is, how the parameters affect the operation, or any error conditions. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without guessing about parameter usage and expected outcomes.

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% — the description makes no mention of any of the six parameters (visible, read_only, model_path, document_id, output_path, close_after_probe). Since the schema has no descriptions for these properties either, the agent has no explanation of their purpose or how they interrelate. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific action ('Collect') and a specific resource ('low-level COM readback manifest'), and it targets 'an opened file or active document.' This clearly indicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like verify_document_readback_stability, which focus on stability verification rather than manifest collection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them, and the nature of a 'readback manifest' remains vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an opened document), conditions for selection, or any exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools or scenarios where this would be preferred.

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