ping

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it reports server info, end-to-end sandbox info when a plugin is connected, and follower/leader version info with skew warnings. This goes well beyond the annotation and provides useful context about edge-case 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with 'Health check', and every clause adds specific meaning without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return behavior thoroughly, including plugin-connected, follower, and stale-server scenarios. It provides sufficient context for the agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect.

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 no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which applies here.

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 identifies the tool as a health check and specifies what it returns, distinguishing it from the sibling tools which are all mutations or other queries. The verb 'Health check' is specific and sets clear expectations.

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 context is clear (use when you need a health check), and there are no exclusions needed since no sibling tool provides similar functionality. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this when', but the purpose is self-evident enough to be considered 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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