probelyrequest

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits like credential referencing using 'credentials://<credential_id>' and forbids template syntax. However, it doesn't describe side effects or error behavior, which is acceptable for a raw request tool.

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 concise (about 5 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes vital notes in a logical order, though it could be structured into bullet points for clarity.

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 raw request tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and credential handling. However, it omits explanation of data/params/json parameters, which is a gap for 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 has 5 parameters (method, path, params, json, data) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions path is relative and method/path are required; it does not explain params, json, or data, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from generic HTTP knowledge.

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 purpose: 'Make a raw request to Probely API (path relative to base).' It specifies the verb 'make' and the resource 'Probely API,' and distinguishes from siblings by noting it's for advanced use cases or endpoints not covered by dedicated tools.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: for authentication configuration, use probely_update_target. Also states it's for advanced use cases or endpoints not covered by dedicated tools, providing clear exclusions.

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