Ping a design host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a 'check' (likely non-mutating) but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what the response indicates on success/failure, or whether it depends on a selected plugin state. The phrase 'selected plugin' suggests a dependency on external state that is not explained.

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, front-loading the purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple ping operation, though the absence of parameter details reduces its overall usefulness.

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's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the role of the 'host' parameter, the meaning of a successful response, or any relationship to the selected plugin. An agent cannot fully determine correct usage without additional context.

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 for the undocumented 'host' parameter. However, the description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the enum values ('figma' and 'xd'). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's enum.

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 clear verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('that the selected plugin can receive bridge requests'), which conveys the tool's purpose as a connectivity test. It is distinct from the sibling design tools, which focus on listing hosts, events, capabilities, and context retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, and the title 'Ping a design host' slightly conflicts with the description's focus on plugin 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no prerequisites (e.g., whether a host must be selected first), and no alternatives. It does not indicate whether this should be called before other operations or in what scenarios it is appropriate.

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