asc_ping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Report' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, does not mention authentication or connectivity requirements, and does not describe failure behavior. It is minimally adequate but could be more explicit.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. Every term — server, engine, path-scope, pagination configuration — adds distinct information, and the verb is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, configuration-reporting tool with an output schema available, the description adequately covers what the tool does. Return-value details can be left to the output schema, and there are no input decisions for the agent to make.

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 and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. Per the zero-parameter baseline, this is handled appropriately; the description's enumerated configuration categories orient the agent toward what the tool returns.

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 states a specific action ('Report') and a specific resource scope: server, engine, path-scope, and pagination configuration. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling APK/source-introspection tools, so an agent knows exactly what this tool provides.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer from the tool name and description that this is a configuration/health probe, which is weaker than explicitly stating usage context.

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