fl_ping

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

No annotations are provided, but the description reveals that it returns a JSON with boolean fields for each bridge's health. However, it does not disclose if the tool performs network calls or has side effects, which limits 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 extremely concise with one sentence and a code block showing the return structure. Every element is necessary, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

While the output structure is provided, the description lacks explanations of what 'online' and 'installed' fields mean or what 'available_capabilities' contains. Although no output schema exists, more context would improve completeness for a health-check 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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter info, which is acceptable; baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 explicitly states 'Report health of BOTH bridges' and provides the output structure with fields for midi_bridge and piano_roll, making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from sibling 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 does not specify when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like fl_reconnect or fl_bridge_info. Usage is implied for health checking, but no explicit guidance is given.

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