ghostrigger_ping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly specifies the HTTP method, endpoint, and exact JSON response format, and the example confirms a zero-argument call. It does not discuss error behavior or side effects, but for a ping operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: action and endpoint first, then return value, KB reference, and a usage example. Every line earns its place with no 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?

For a zero-parameter health-check tool with an output schema context, the description is complete: it provides the endpoint, the exact response payload, a KB pointer, and an example. Nothing essential for invoking or interpreting this tool 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 input schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The description reinforces the no-argument call with the example 'ghostrigger_ping()', which is the baseline expected for a zero-parameter 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 states a specific action ('Ping') and a specific target ('the GhostRigger IPC server'), and includes the HTTP endpoint POST /api/ping. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghostrigger_health and ghostrigger_read_resource by clarifying it is a connectivity probe.

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 this tool is for checking whether the GhostRigger IPC server is reachable, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling alternatives such as ghostrigger_health or ghostrigger_list_mcp_tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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