suggest_probes

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the shape of the output (fault actions with a call-making path, probe_web_field argument sets, click paths), which tells the agent these are suggestions rather than executed probes. It does not state read-only behavior, side effects, cost, or whether suggestions are deduplicated against existing rules.

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?

One dense sentence of scope plus one short sentence of sequencing, with no filler. Front-loaded with what the tool returns, which is the right ordering. Slightly list-heavy phrasing but every clause adds information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still usefully summarizes them. However, for a two-param tool with zero schema documentation, the missing meaning of 'feature' and 'limit' is a substantive gap an agent must guess at.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented anywhere. The description only implies that 'feature' scopes the gaps; it never says what form a feature identifier takes and never mentions 'limit' (default 30) at all, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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?

States a specific action and resource: generating concrete next-step probes that target a feature's coverage gaps. The enumeration of three probe flavors (fault actions, probe_web_field arguments, click paths) makes the capability concrete and distinguishable from the sibling 'coverage' tool, though it never explicitly contrasts with it.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: run after discover_ui and after each batch of rules. That is a real when-to-use instruction an agent can act on. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or naming the alternative (e.g., plain 'coverage') for a purely informational read.

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