discovery_probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the non-destructive, external-network nature is covered. The description adds the important scoping constraint (single host, no ranges), but discloses nothing about rate limits, probing behavior, or what a probe returns.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the constraint second; no filler. Slightly terse given it could clarify scope relative to siblings, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only probe with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and scope but omits what a probe yields and when to choose it over sibling discovery tools. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent selecting among several discovery options.

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 75%, with host, port, and protocols described; only https lacks a description (though its name and default are self-evident). The description echoes the host/port and no-ranges constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

States a specific verb 'Probe' with the resource 'single host+port' and names what it hunts for (common OpenAPI/SOAP/GraphQL paths). The 'single' scoping implicitly separates it from scan/host-wide siblings like discovery_scan_host, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'CIDR / ranges are never allowed' clause gives a hard constraint for when this tool applies versus a broader scan. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer discovery_probe over discovery_scan_host or discovery_suggest, leaving the routing decision implied.

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