ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the critical behavioral trait (NEVER TOUCHES THE DATABASE, therefore responsive during a sync) and supplies an interpretation rule — a 'broken' result from another tool while write_locked is true indicates the lock, not corrupt data. Missing is any statement of side effects (none) or of what the tool itself returns on failure, but for a read-only probe the key traits are covered.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it reports, the key behavioral guarantee, and how to read failures from other tools. The framing as questions is slightly informal but front-loads the payload immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still names write_locked, one of the likely returned fields, tying it to diagnostic use. For a zero-parameter probe this is essentially complete; only an explicit statement of what the tool returns when the server is down would improve it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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 frames the tool as three concrete questions it answers: liveness, running code version, and database lock state. That is a clear, specific health-probe purpose distinguishable from data-returning siblings like sync_status or basic_metrics, though it never explicitly states 'this is the health check, use it before/after X' or names a sibling it could be confused with.

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?

It gives real usage context: call it to verify the server is alive and to check whether a lock explains failures, and it explains that it 'answers during a sync' when other tools may not. It stops short of explicit routing (e.g. 'use this instead of sync_status when you only need liveness'), so it is strong but not a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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