results_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two selection modes and that actual coordinates are returned, acknowledging approximation. However, it omits behavior for conflicting or missing point/node_index inputs, and does not mention error handling or precedence, leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two selection modes and return value. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the primary functionality and return value. Minor gaps remain regarding parameter constraints and error cases, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure.

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 the description must compensate. It clearly explains 'point' and 'node_index' by defining selection modes. However, 'file' and 'variable' are left implicit, and the expected interplay between optional parameters (whether exactly one must be provided) is not specified.

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 reads a variable's value at a specific location, distinguishing it from overview tools like results_summary and rendering tools like results_render. It specifies the exact mechanism (nearest point or node index), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'at one location' clearly implies this tool is for single-point probing, distinct from broader result exploration tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for inference.

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