gemini-ping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It meaningfully discloses that the tool avoids the CLI and any model and only echoes the prompt from the relay, strongly implying a safe, side-effect-free operation. It does not describe return format or error cases, but for a simple ping tool this is adequate.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative routing is stated in the second sentence without redundancy.

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 low-complexity, optional-parameter ping tool, the description fully enables correct selection and invocation. The absence of an output schema is not a significant gap because the echo behavior makes the return value self-evident.

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 schema already fully describes the single 'prompt' parameter as 'Message to echo', so the description adds little beyond confirming the echo behavior. This matches the baseline expectation for full schema coverage.

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 specific language ('liveness check', 'echoes the prompt back') and precisely identifies the resource/scope: the relay itself, not the CLI or any model. It clearly differentiates this tool from gemini-doctor and other sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool for a relay liveness check and explicitly directs agents to gemini-doctor for CLI checks. This gives clear selection guidance and distinguishes the tool from its closest alternative.

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