xbox_ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the protocol detail (port 5050) and what the probe determines, which is useful. It omits timeout/retry behavior, whether the console must be on the same subnet, and what a negative result actually means — meaningful gaps for a network probe.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Every clause (port, online/awake/responding) contributes information.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete: the agent knows the target, the port, and the conditions tested. A brief note on the return shape (boolean vs. latency/status detail) would close the remaining gap.

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 'ip' parameter is documented there, including that it is optional when config has a saved address. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (pings an Xbox console) and pins down the mechanism (port 5050) plus the exact conditions being tested (online, awake, responding). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like xbox_discover, which finds consoles rather than probing a known one.

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 phrasing 'check if it is online, awake, and actively responding' implies a diagnostic/pre-flight use case, but the description never says when to prefer this over xbox_discover, or whether to ping before xbox_power_on. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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