environment.probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is largely covered as structured data. "Without opening an IDE or contacting a PLC" adds a modest behavioral nuance (no external process launch), but partly restates openWorldHint=false; nothing is said about cost, latency, or scope of the inventory returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead, and the constraint follows. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

With zero parameters, a rich annotation set and an existing output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, it never defines what counts as a "local installation" (PLC runtimes, adapters, SDKs?) nor when in a workflow to run it, which is the one thing an agent must decide before calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to supply and the baseline of 4 applies. No misuse risk stems from undocumented arguments.

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+resource: "Inventory local installations." The qualifier "without opening an IDE or contacting a PLC" hints at how it differs from adapter.invoke or a discovery-style sibling, though it never names an alternative, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit. An agent can tell what it does but must infer where it sits among the 10 siblings.

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 non-invasive phrasing suggests it is a safe pre-flight discovery step before invoking adapters or starting workflows, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative sibling is named. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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