probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (ALIGNED/DISPLACED counts), the side effect (costs one attempt), and a critical behavioral trait (never opens the lock), going beyond the bare schema.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with 'Reconnaissance', but contains a slightly redundant final sentence ('Probe to deduce the secret') that largely restates the purpose. Otherwise each sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input, output, side effects, and a key constraint. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing additional details.

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 schema's single parameter 'approach' has 0% description coverage. The description explains the candidate code as a string of glyphs exactly code_length long, which gives meaning to the parameter, but it does not explicitly map 'approach' to that value or discuss error handling for malformed input.

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 tests a candidate code and returns ALIGNED/DISPLACED counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling submit_solution by explicitly noting 'A probe NEVER opens the lock'.

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 reconnaissance and 'Probe to deduce the secret', and warns it never opens the lock, which tells when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like submit_solution for when the lock should be opened.

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