probe_endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it performs only a benign unauthenticated handshake, never modifies the endpoint, requires ownership attestation, and is the only network-opening tool. It also mentions the HTTP disabling condition. Minor omission is output format, but safety and constraints are well-covered.

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 moderately concise with four sentences that each add value. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear structure. Some all-caps emphasis is slightly excessive but acceptable. Could be slightly trimmed without loss.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, network operation, ownership, mode), the description covers many aspects like safety, ownership, constraints, and special network behavior. However, it lacks any description of the output or return value, which is needed since there is no output schema. This is a notable gap for completeness.

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%, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context to parameters: explains ownership attestation, mode auto-behavior, target constraints, and timeout context. This goes beyond schema descriptions and aids correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('probe') and resource ('one live TLS/SSH endpoint') and clearly states it checks for post-quantum readiness with PQC-hybrid key exchange and classical certificate posture. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the only sibling tool that opens a network connection.

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 provides clear usage context: it requires ownership attestation, refuses CIDR ranges/wildcards, and limits to one host at a time. It also notes the network connectivity specialness and the environment variable for HTTP. Missing explicit alternatives but sufficient for an agent to decide when to use.

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