ping

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

Adds significant detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: returns server info, end-to-end info when plugin connected, and leader version/versionSkew warning on follower. Fully discloses output behavior.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-load the core purpose ('Health check') and progressively detail output variations. No extraneous words.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers all relevant behavioral contexts (server, plugin connection, follower scenario) with no gaps.

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?

No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description effectively explains what the tool returns, which is the only relevant semantic info here, earning a 5.

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?

Describes 'Health check' as a specific verb-noun pair, and details multiple contexts (plugin connected, follower) that distinguish it from sibling tools, none of which perform health checks.

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 use for checking server health and connectivity, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, given its unique purpose among siblings, the context is clear.

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