get_probe_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get real-time status' implies a read-only operation and it does disclose what is returned (node activity, locations, detection counts), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits any auth requirements, refresh/freshness semantics beyond the word 'real-time', and rate constraints.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded with the purpose and payload. The trailing sentence ('Stats endpoint now returns SNI/DNS detection counts via detection_methods') reads like a changelog note referring to a differently named endpoint, which adds ambiguity rather than value.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does cover the essentials: it names the resource and sketches the return contents. The missing pieces (freshness cadence, auth) are minor for what is essentially an unauthenticated status read.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Notably it never mentions a parameter, which is consistent with an empty input 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get real-time status of Voidly's probe network,' and enumerates what the payload contains (active nodes, locations, recent probe activity). It is clear on its own, but does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like check_domain_probes or get_community_probes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no named alternative. The second and third sentences describe payload contents rather than situations that should select this tool over the probe-related siblings, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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