Identify the executor and its headline capabilities

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the internal probe chain: identifyexecutor() is guarded and may return a name, version, or nothing, with getexecutorname()/getexecutorinfo() fallbacks. It also notes required active-client context, read-only safety, diagnostic output, and on-failure guidance to inspect tool-schema, all without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded: the purpose comes first, followed by mechanism, usage, and metadata. It is somewhat over-stuffed with fragments such as 'Signature: {}.' and repeats the read-only safety in both the idempotency and safety lines, but the structure remains clear and useful.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only executor probe with no output schema, the description covers purpose, internal fallback behavior, first-use guidance, required client state, and failure handling. Nothing an agent needs in order to select and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters and the description states 'Signature: {}', matching the empty input schema. No additional parameter semantics are needed, so the baseline score for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: an in-game probe that reports which executor is hosting the connector and a small capability map. It distinguishes the tool from sibling reflection/hooking tools by positioning it as a first-call capability check. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says to call this first on a new client before reaching for reflection/hooking tools, which gives clear usage context and relative ordering. However, it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool or state when not to call it, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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