sd_ping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by naming the specific status categories reported, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as error conditions, whether it requires an active bridge connection, or how compatibility is determined.

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, grammatically complete sentence that leads with the action verb 'Report'. Every term is meaningful, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 status tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient scope of what is reported. It could explicitly state that it is a health check or suggest when to call it, but the name and content are adequate for most purposes.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain inputs. The schema already fully covers this (no properties), and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 'Report' and lists concrete items (MCP, bridge, plugin, Designer version, session, compatibility status), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sd_get_application_info by covering a broader scope of statuses.

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 gives no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so agents may not know if this should be called at startup, before other operations, or when debugging connectivity issues.

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