service_url_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (resolve DNS and probe HTTP status) but lacks details on response codes, timeouts, error handling, or redirects. For a simple read-only liveness check, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with an additional short tagline. Every word earns its place, no redundancy or fluff. Concise and well-structured.

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 is simple with two parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description captures the core purpose and usage context. However, the lack of parameter descriptions and explicit usage boundaries leaves a small gap, but given the output schema existence, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It references <service> in the URL template but does not explain the 'scheme' parameter or its default behavior. The description slightly clarifies the service param's role but leaves scheme ambiguous.

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's function: resolve a service URL within INFRA_PUBLIC_DOMAIN and probe its HTTP status, framed as a quick liveness check. This distinguishes it from sibling infrastructure tools that focus on status, logs, disk, deploys, restart, reload, or prune. The verb 'probe' and resource specification are specific.

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 implies usage for a quick liveness check, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like infra_status_tool. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The context is clear but not differentiated.

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