maya_ping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior of checking liveness/version, and adds valuable context that if undo_enabled is false, there is no undo safety net. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm the tool is non-destructive or describe the full return format.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance and a key behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and a critical safety behavior (undo_enabled), which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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?

There are no parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently satisfied. The description doesn't need to explain any input fields; the baseline for zero parameters 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks whether the Maya bridge is alive and its version, using a specific verb ('확인합니다') and resource (Maya bridge). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like maya_execute or maya_scene_info.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when other tools give connection errors, to narrow down the cause. This provides clear usage context, but it doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives explicitly.

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