probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the collected data types and requires an authorized target, but omits whether probing is active or passive, what HTTP requests are made, rate limits, or possible side effects.

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 short sentences front-load the core purpose and then state the authorization constraint. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant explanation.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description reasonably lists the returned fields. However, for an HTTP probing tool it lacks important context about target format (host vs URL), protocol handling, and whether HTTPS or specific ports are attempted.

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 100%, so the single 'targets' parameter is already documented as comma-separated hosts. The description adds no further syntax, format, or protocol guidance beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 verb and resource ('Sonde HTTP d'hôtes') and lists the outputs it collects: status, title, banner, and technologies. This clearly distinguishes it from non-HTTP siblings such as ports and dirs, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It includes the authorization constraint 'Cible autorisée uniquement', which is useful when-not guidance. However, it does not explain when to choose probe over sibling tools like ports, dirs, tmpl, or kev.

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