ping_houdini

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 discloses that it does not persist a new connection, calls hou.version() once, returns a dict with pong/elapsed_ms/within_timeout/hou_version, and handles exceptions by setting pong=False and including an error field.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter section and behavioral note are compact and valuable. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds meaning without redundancy.

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?

The description covers return values, exception handling, connection semantics, timeout behavior, and usage context, making it fairly complete for a simple ping tool. However, it fails to explain the 'ctx' parameter and the schema types timeout as string while the description implies numeric seconds, causing minor ambiguity.

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. It thoroughly explains timeout, including default and behavior when exceeded, but completely omits any explanation of the required 'ctx' parameter, leaving its meaning and usage unclear.

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?

Description clearly states it is a lightweight Houdini-side ping that verifies response time. It distinguishes itself from the bridge protocol's 'ping' command, which only validates socket/frame protocol, while this tool measures actual Houdini response time via hou.version().

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?

Explicitly states it is suitable for health checks and quick probes in network jitter scenarios. It also warns against confusing it with the bridge protocol's 'ping' command, providing an exclusion and clarification.

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