probe_error_handling

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool sends various probe payloads and detects specific exposure types, which is valuable context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first packs the core purpose and methodology, the second is a helpful note. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

While the description covers inputs and detection targets, it lacks information about the output format, result structure, or execution behavior (e.g., sequential vs parallel probes). Given no output schema, this gap reduces 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%, and the schema already describes the 'url' parameter. The description does not add new details about the parameter (e.g., format or constraints), so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 explicitly states 'Error response analysis' and lists specific probe types (404s, malformed input, etc.) and detections (stack trace leakage, framework disclosure, etc.), making the tool's purpose very clear and distinguishing it from siblings like 'audit_errors' which likely focus on existing error logs.

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 mentions 'No source code needed,' implying a use case when source is unavailable, but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. Guidance is minimal.

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