ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions a prerequisite but does not explain what 'check' entails (e.g., whether it sends a ping, returns a boolean, or has side effects). The agent is left guessing about the tool's operational effect on the DebugBridge.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the key requirement and the action, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent can expect after calling this tool, such as return values or success/failure indicators. It does not, leaving the tool's output behavior completely unspecified. For a simple ping, this is a notable gap.

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 is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The baseline for no params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb 'check' with a specific resource 'in-app DebugBridge', making it clear the tool verifies the debug bridge connection. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ensure_ports or get_debug_page, but the action is distinct enough for a ping-like tool.

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?

It clearly states a prerequisite: 'Require a connected physical iOS device', which tells the agent when this tool can be used. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite provides strong context for usage.

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