probe_elicitation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses important side effects: no translation, no task submission, no quota deduction, and that it may actually pop up a question to the user if supported. It also states what the tool returns: client-declared capabilities.

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 front-loaded with the most important scoping information and every sentence earns its place. It covers negative effects, purpose, invocation behavior, return value, and usage restriction without redundant filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: what it does, what it returns, when to call it, and what side effects to expect. The low complexity of a zero-parameter tool means no additional detail is required.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty input schema. The description adequately explains what happens on invocation, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 it as a connectivity self-check tool with a specific verb and resource: verifying server-side MCP elicitation capability. It explicitly states what it does not do (translate, submit tasks, deduct quota) and distinguishes itself from normal translation workflow tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only call when troubleshooting whether the server can directly ask the user via MCP elicitation. It also states a clear exclusion: do not call in normal translation flow, which prevents misuse among the many sibling translation tools.

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