sonar_next_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the input and purpose but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any authorization requirements. For a suggestion tool, these are less critical but still a gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that delivers the essential information upfront. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains the input context by referencing 'sonar_map_transcript', but it does not describe the output format of the suggestion, which would be helpful for an agent anticipating the result.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining that 'current_map' should be the axis_scores object from a previous call, which goes beyond the schema's type information. This provides concrete guidance for the parameter.

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 ('suggest') and resource ('next probe'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the output of 'sonar_map_transcript' and specifying 'weakest axis' as the targeting criterion.

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 context by stating the tool should be given a 'current sonar map from sonar_map_transcript', implying a proper usage sequence. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the implicit workflow.

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