Probe with anon key

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It clearly discloses that the tool is read-only, uses only the anon key, never writes, and returns OPEN/closed per target. It also explains the specific methods (select * limit 1, list, call with {}) which is transparent about behavior. Missing details like error handling or rate limits are minor for a read-only probe.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the most important facts: read-only and uses only the anon key. The second sentence details the targets and return format. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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?

The description covers the essential information an agent needs: what the tool does, how it operates, and what it returns (OPEN/closed per target). It does not have an output schema, but the return format is described. The parameters are covered by schema and description, including env fallbacks. It is complete for a read-only probe, though it could mention how to handle missing credentials or errors, which is a minor gap.

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 schema descriptions are minimal (names and examples), but the description adds semantic value by explaining how each target type is probed: tables via REST select, buckets via list, RPC via call with {}. This goes beyond the schema. The description does not explicitly map parameters to these behaviors, but the connection is clear from the context. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and this earns a 4 for added meaning.

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: probe what a stranger can read using the anon key, covering tables, storage buckets, and RPC functions. It uses specific verbs (probe, check, read) and names the resource (anonymous access). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on anonymous read access, which is distinct from audit_policies, two_account_test, and security_report.

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 implies when to use it (to check anonymous access) and explicitly notes it is read-only and never writes. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Given the sibling tools are security-related, there is an implicit context, but no direct comparison or exclusion.

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