ping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe, repeatable operation. The description adds the specific return value ('ok'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 short sentences ('Health check tool. Returns "ok".') with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and immediately states the output, making it highly concise.

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 simple health check tool with no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It states the purpose and the return value, which is all the agent needs to know to invoke and interpret the result.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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 states 'Health check tool. Returns "ok"' which clearly identifies the tool as a health check and its output. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_time_entries_for_date and check_auth, which serve different purposes. However, it lacks specificity about what exactly is being checked (e.g., API availability, database connectivity).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using it before other operations or for verifying service health. The description does not discuss exclusions or prerequisites.

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