herdr_ping

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

The description discloses that the tool returns server version and protocol, giving insight into its output. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

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 consists of two short sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no unnecessary information. Every word earns its place.

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, simple ping tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return values, making it complete in context.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 'Ping' and identifies the resource 'herdr server', making its purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle sessions, workspaces, tabs, etc., which are all different actions.

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 implies the tool is used to check server connectivity and retrieve version/protocol info, which is clear from the context. However, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives, though no direct alternatives exist for a ping operation.

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