asset_endpoint_probe

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs GET/HEAD requests and gathers status codes and response sizes. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention potential rate limiting or impact on services, or describe what happens on failure. Moderate transparency.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and key details. It is concise with no redundant information, though it could be more structured.

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 description adequately explains the tool's function for a probe with 7 parameters and no output schema. However, it does not describe the return format or pagination results, and the presence of similar sibling tools suggests a need for more contextual differentiation.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the probe list and categories but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters 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 the tool's purpose: actively probing common endpoints using GET/HEAD requests to identify accessible endpoints, status codes, and response sizes. It specifies coverage of 20+ endpoints across common business modules. While it distinguishes from many unrelated sibling tools, it does not explicitly contrast with similar endpoint tools like asset_endpoint_enum.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like asset_endpoint_enum or asset_routes_discover, nor does it give conditions for its use.

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