Ping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, especially 'Never spawns the Qoder CLI,' which explains a meaningful behavioral guarantee that annotations alone do not convey.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Liveness check') and then add the key behavioral details. No redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 no-parameter, read-only, idempotent liveness tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns (server version and workspace roots), and what it avoids doing (spawning the CLI). Nothing essential is missing.

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 are no parameter semantics to document. The empty schema fully covers this, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 states a specific purpose: a liveness check that reports server version and accepted workspace roots. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are about canceling, running, statusing, and replying to Qoder operations.

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 clear context: use this when you need a lightweight liveness/health check. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, but for a tool this simple, the context is sufficient.

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