instrument_probe

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose useful job semantics: bounded batch, atomic job scope, and safely resumable/retryable processing. However, it never states whether probing is read-only, what side effects it has, whether it is asynchronous and returns a job ID, or what the output payload looks like.

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 one-sentence description is concise, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and contains no redundant phrasing. It earns its two clauses; the only cost is that the brevity leaves out needed operational detail.

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 a large nested plugin schema, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to explain the job workflow, required plugins structure, and return behavior. It covers only the high-level batching and retry semantics, leaving an agent without enough information to safely invoke a 5-parameter tool with required nested plugins.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain the five parameters, but it only loosely references 'preset batch.' bpm, pitches, velocity, max_seconds, and the required plugins object are left undefined in both schema and description, so an agent cannot know valid units or how to construct a request.

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 names a concrete operation ('probe'), a bounded scope ('preset batch'), and a job-based execution model ('in one job'), so an agent can tell this starts a batch probe rather than a single-item inspection. It still relies on the tool name for the 'instrument' context and never defines what a probe returns, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as instrument_probe_resume, effect_probe, or sound_probe. The phrase 'retry/resume preserves completed tasks' hints that the tool is job-oriented, but the agent is left to infer that instrument_probe_resume would be the follow-up tool.

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