probe_registered_mcps

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Safely probe' suggests a non-destructive operation, but it does not clarify what probing does, what side effects (if any) exist, what happens on connection failure, or whether authentication/configuration is required. This is too vague for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 word earns its place: 'Safely' conveys non-destructive intent, 'probe' names the action, and 'all configured MCPs or a named subset' defines the scope.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate for invocation. However, it omits return-value expectations, error behavior, and any guidance on how this relates to the many sibling health/monitoring tools. Since no annotations supplement these gaps, the definition is not fully self-sufficient.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the only parameter's core semantics: omitting 'servers' probes all configured MCPs, while providing it probes a named subset. This maps cleanly to the optional 'servers' array and gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 clear action ('probe') and resource ('all configured MCPs'), and also notes the optional scoping to 'a named subset.' It distinguishes itself from the health-report siblings by focusing on probing rather than summarizing or listing jobs, though it does not explicitly call out a sibling.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The word 'Safely' hints at a read-only intent, but the description does not tell an agent how to choose this tool over get_server_health, check_gateway_health, or the other sibling tools.

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