api_probe

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It notes the tool sends multiple methods and analyzes responses, but does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or error handling. For a probing tool, read-only intent is implied but not explicit.

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 and well-structured: first sentence defines core functionality, second adds customization and use case. No redundant information, though some details could be more specific.

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?

Given five parameters including nested headers and no output schema, the description covers the core function but omits important context like return format, behavior on failure, or how CORS analysis works. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds only generic mention of custom headers and body, which mirrors the schema. No additional nuance or constraints are provided beyond the schema.

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 it is an API endpoint probe tool that sends multiple HTTP methods and analyzes responses. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like asset_endpoint_probe or security_headers_check, which have overlapping purposes.

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 mentions suitability for API security testing and endpoint discovery, providing some context. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from related tools, leaving usage determination to the agent.

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