veriscope_probe_radar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Probe' weakly implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about side effects, permissions, caching, cost, or what the 'radar statistics' output looks like, leaving the agent to infer everything beyond subject matter.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with no filler, and the aggregation scope is front-loaded. Every clause names a distinct thing the probe returns, so 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 single-optional-param survey tool the scope statement is adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent gets no sense of result shape or size ('radar statistics' is undefined). It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Optional discipline code to filter radar statistics'), and the description adds nothing further about valid codes or how filtering changes the results. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline of 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 names concrete resources (matrix coverage, discipline distribution, available conceptual nodes) and a scope ('across all 24 academic disciplines'), so the agent knows this is a survey-style probe rather than a lookup. It does not distinguish itself explicitly from siblings like veriscope_discover_concepts or veriscope_inspect_topography, and 'matrix'/'radar' remain domain jargon, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'across all 24 disciplines' framing suggests an overview/first-pass tool before drilling in with discover_concepts, and the optional discipline filter hints at narrowing. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the four sibling tools and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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