wps_common_ping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it is fast and returns connection status information, which is useful context but not substantial beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the primary purpose, then provides bullet-pointed use cases and features. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan quickly. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple ping tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what it does, when it is used, and what it returns (connection status). It could specify the exact format of the return value, but for a connectivity check, this is a minor 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to compensate. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional parameter information is required.

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's function: detecting WPS application connection status. It provides concrete use-case examples (e.g., 'WPS连上了吗') and a feature bullet ('快速检测WPS加载项是否可达'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like wps_check_connection or wps_common_wire_check, which likely serve similar purposes.

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 gives example user queries but no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusion criteria, or context where another sibling would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the generic ping description.

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