ap_ping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a real request is sent, what data is returned, and that it validates the end-to-end path. It does not mention failure behavior or side effects, but for a health-check ping this is minor and the core behavior is well described.

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 tight sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, the return values are specified, and the comparison to a sibling is included in the second sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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, parameterless ping tool, the description is complete: it says what the tool does, what it returns, and how it differs from the closest sibling. No output schema exists, but the explicitly listed return fields are sufficient for an agent to interpret the result.

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, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds value by explaining what the no-argument invocation returns, which is more than the empty schema can provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Round-trip health check' with a clear mechanism ('sends a real request through the file mailbox') and defined return values ('app time, window title and current project path'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ap_bridge_status, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 names the alternative ap_bridge_status and draws the comparison: ap_ping confirms the whole path works end to end, while the sibling 'only reads the heartbeat.' This gives an agent a clear decision rule for which tool to invoke when checking connectivity.

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