get_community_probes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only) and lists output fields, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. The description adds some context but is insufficient for full 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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, the second describes outputs, and the third adds community context. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and output fields well. It lacks mention of the output format (e.g., JSON array) but is otherwise complete for a list tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline is 4. The description adds value by mentioning the output fields (node locations, trust scores, measurement counts), which helps set expectations for what the tool returns.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'active community probe nodes' in Voidly's network. It specifies the outputs: node locations, trust scores, and measurement counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_probe_network and get_community_leaderboard.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for listing probe nodes, but doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist (e.g., get_probe_network) but no comparative guidance.

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