Maya Ping

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does convey that this is a pre-flight connectivity check rather than a mutating action. However it says nothing about failure modes (timeout, no instance connected) or whether the call has side effects on the plugin link, which would matter for a diagnostic gate.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, and the action is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Nothing here is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the single optional parameter is fully covered by the schema. The only gap is undisclosed behavior on a failed ping, which is minor for a read-only diagnostic.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional session_key is already documented as 'Target Maya session; omit if only one is connected.' The description adds nothing about session targeting, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but it is not adding value.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check connectivity to a Maya instance') and adds the payload ('return basic instance info'), so the agent knows exactly what this does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbours like list_sessions or get_scene_info, which an agent might reasonably reach for instead.

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?

It gives a clear condition for use: 'verify the server/plugin link before running other tools.' That is genuine when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not and no named alternative to compare against, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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