ping_host

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is blocking up to timeout seconds, read-only, returns partial results in the errors field on failed pings, and is fatal only for invalid hosts. This is substantial transparency for a network tool, though it does not detail exact return structure beyond the output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core function first, then parameters, then behavioral traits and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no冗余 repetition of schema details. Ideal length for the complexity.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter defaults, blocking behavior, error handling, and recommended use case. An output schema exists, so return values are already structurally defined. This is a complete and self-sufficient description for a 3-parameter tool.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the schema carries the parameter definitions. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: host is required and validated, count defaults to 4, timeout defaults to 10s, and behavior on failure is partial results. This goes beyond the schema baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool sends ICMP packets and returns latency, packet loss, and response times. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_dns by explicitly noting its use for reachability checks, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use for reachability checks; resolve_dns to separate DNS from connectivity.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative, fulfilling the highest bar for usage guidance.

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