ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it checks connectivity and returns the server version, which are the key behavioral aspects. It implicitly indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, sufficient for a simple ping tool.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and result, making it immediately scannable and easy to understand.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear return value) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the purpose and behavioral outcome without needing additional details.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no further explanation is required.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' with resource 'connectivity to the InfluxDB instance', clearly distinguishing it from sibling data operations like list_databases and query. It also specifies the return value (server version), leaving no ambiguity.

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 clearly implies its use as a connectivity/health check for the InfluxDB instance. Though no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the tool's purpose is self-evident and no sibling covers connectivity, making usage context clear.

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