Ping Cavalry

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

The annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add context. It does so by describing both the connectivity check and the version information returned; the only minor gap is that it does not say what a failure looks like.

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?

It is two short sentences with no redundancy, and it front-loads the primary check before mentioning the secondary return values.

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 no-parameter health-check tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return content. It would be a 5 if it mentioned the expected result/status or failure behavior.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description does not waste space on it.

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 specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('Cavalry running and the bridge reachable'), and it also names what the tool returns (bridge and Cavalry versions). This makes it clearly distinguishable from the many mutation and scene-inspection siblings, none of which are health checks.

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 makes it obvious that this is a pre-flight connectivity check, so an agent can infer calling it before other cavalry_* operations. It does not, however, explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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