clo_ping

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool checks if CLO is open and reachable, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not detail what the output indicates or potential error states, leaving some room for interpretation.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and subject, providing immediate clarity.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and low complexity, the description is fully adequate. It captures the essential purpose without needing further elaboration.

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 (100% coverage). The description correctly has no parameter details as none exist. According to guidelines, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource ('CLO is open and the listener is reachable'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools (e.g., add_fabric, auto_hang) by focusing on connectivity rather than manipulation.

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 the tool is for verifying connectivity but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the tool's simplicity and uniqueness among siblings, the implied usage is sufficient.

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