Test Persona

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it performs a single HTTP GET and defines which status codes (2xx, 401, 403) count as success. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying the method and success criteria. However, it does not disclose whether the probe has any side effects (e.g., logging) or what happens on failure, but the given information is valuable and not contradicting.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, the success criteria are clearly stated, and the prerequisite is mentioned. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical: purpose, mechanics, and success definition.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it does it (one GET), success criteria, and a prerequisite. It does not specify the exact return format, but since the success criteria are defined, an agent can infer it returns a boolean or status. The absence of output schema is mitigated by the clear success definition. The description is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 schema already documents personaId, environmentId, and probePath. The description adds context by explaining that the GET goes to probePath and uses the persona's resolved auth, but it doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema says. It reinforces the relationships between parameters but does not compensate for any missing schema info, as none is missing. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: probing a persona's credentials against an environment via a single GET to probePath. It specifies the verb (probe), resource (persona credentials), and the precise action (GET). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_resolved_auth by focusing on the actual probe rather than just retrieving auth. The success criteria further clarify the purpose.

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 gives a clear use case: 'before a scan relies on them'. It also notes a prerequisite: 'Requires project context.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know this is a pre-scan validation step. It lacks explicit comparison to get_resolved_auth or other auth-related tools, but the intent is apparent.

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