ping_api

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses the HTTP method and endpoint, the expected pong response, and that no credentials are needed. These details cover the meaningful invocation behavior for this simple probe without contradicting the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, endpoint, expected response, and credential requirement. Its final sentence efficiently routes agents to the two relevant alternatives without redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter, read-only liveness check, the definition supplies everything needed to select and invoke it correctly. Although there is no output schema, the description still provides the essential expected result, pong.

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 is no parameter meaning for the description to supplement and the zero-parameter baseline applies. The endpoint detail is useful behavioral context rather than parameter documentation.

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 states a precise action and target: check whether the BunkerWeb API answers through GET /ping and returns pong. It also distinguishes this API-level probe from diagnose_bunkerweb and ping_instances.

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?

Calling it 'the fastest liveness probe' gives a clear reason to select it. The alternatives are explicit: use diagnose_bunkerweb for authentication, version, and instance checks, or ping_instances to test the instances themselves.

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