Connector and runtime self-report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the pcall-guard semantics (unavailable functions report as null rather than failing) and the Requires: active-client precondition, but it repeats the safety/idempotency facts already in annotations via the 'Phase/cost/idempotency/Safety' metadata block.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the long return-shape enumeration is genuinely informative. However the trailing metadata ('Phase: verify; cost=medium; ... Produces: ... On failure: inspect tool-schema...') is somewhat boilerplate and dilutes the signal.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value and does so exhaustively, plus it names the precondition (active-client) and the failure mode. A minor oddity is listing 'created-handle' as a product for a read-only tool, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100% and the single optional threadContext parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the signature ('{ threadContext: number? }') without adding syntax or behavioral meaning beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (probe) and resource (live connector/runtime) and describes the self-report returned. It distinguishes itself from a category of tools ('before relying on reflection/hooking tools'), but never names a concrete sibling like get-executor-info or test-capabilities that an agent would weigh against 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 two clear usage contexts: confirming connector capabilities before reflection/hooking work, and diagnosing unexpected client behavior. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an explicit alternative among the many overlapping diagnostics siblings.

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