probe_http

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'safe read-only', indicating non-mutating behavior, and restricts targets to localhost or authorized external, which is useful. However, it fails to disclose behaviors related to parameters, response format, authentication needs, or rate limiting, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and target constraint. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse. However, it is perhaps too brief given the other gaps, but for conciseness alone it is strong.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a complete description would need to cover parameter semantics, expected return values, and use cases. This description only provides a high-level purpose and target restriction, leaving the agent without enough information to call the tool correctly. It is substantially incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It offers no explanation for any of the five parameters (base_url, deep_active, session_file, authorization_note, external_authorized). The agent cannot infer their meaning or usage from the description, which is a severe deficiency.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only HTTP prober with specific target constraints (localhost or explicitly authorized external targets). It uses a concrete verb ('Run') and a resource ('HTTP probes'), making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't name a sibling, no sibling tool appears similar, so it stands alone effectively.

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 implies use for probing HTTP endpoints but provides no explicit scenarios, alternatives, or exclusions. It does not mention when to prefer another tool or when this tool should not be used. The guidance is inferred from the purpose statement rather than directly stated.

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