Probe the ASP diagnostic echo

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

The annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: first versus repeated call semantics, no forwarding, and pseudonymised telemetry recording. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the privacy link provides an additional transparency pointer.

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 three sentences, front-loads the endpoint, and each sentence contributes necessary behavioral or privacy information. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless diagnostic probe.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains that a first call returns a local header echo and a repeated call returns the ASP terminal signal. However, terms like 'ASP terminal signal' and 'ticket lifetime' remain undefined, and the description does not route the agent among sibling tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema and additionalProperties:false already make the calling contract clear, and the description appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 action and endpoint: calling the header echo of the ASP reference node via GET. It also explains the first-contact versus repeated-call behavior, which clarifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings such as check_asp_manifest, query_reader_disposition, or asp_guarded_fetch.

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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It describes call-sequence behavior, but does not name sibling tools or state conditions that would select this probe over another diagnostic tool.

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