Probe a single remote/bindable's shape (arg types, listeners, callback)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, but the description goes further: it explains that each probe is optional and pcall-guarded, that the tool never throws, that missing executor capabilities cause fields to be omitted with a *Error note, and it gives the exact return shape. This is rich behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 with the core purpose and then structured into class-specific probe explanations. It is longer than typical but earns much of its length through necessary behavioral detail. Some generic boilerplate near the end ('On failure: inspect tool-schema...', phase/cost metadata) is less essential, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 return-value burden and does so completely: it lists the exact return object fields, explains optional fields and error notes, covers prerequisites ('Requires: active-client, resolved-target'), and describes failure behavior. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without external references.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the signature and clarifies that remotePath must resolve to an Instance of specific classes, but adds no new syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Read-only inspection of ONE remote or bindable to learn how it is used WITHOUT firing it or installing any hook.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like fire-remote and monitor-remote by stating what it does not do, and it explains the class-specific probing behavior in detail.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this after list-remotes to understand a specific remote before firing it (fire-remote) or before spying it (monitor-remote).' It names the alternatives and the condition that selects them, leaving little to inference.

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