ddb_ping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that this is a stateless handshake (no write side effects implied), explains the version-assertion semantics, the meaning of the capabilities flags (writes enabled, optional rollPump/partySnapshot surfaces), and the additive-only field guarantee across versions. It could spell out the exact return shape, but the behavior is substantially transparent for a zero-parameter ping.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, usage instructions follow, and the additive-only behavioral guarantee closes. There is zero filler or repetition of schema content, and the most decision-relevant information (what it returns, when to call it) appears first.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of runtime contract information, and it covers the essentials completely: return fields (name, version, capabilities), how to act on them (assert version, gate on capabilities), and version stability guarantees. For a zero-parameter handshake, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results is missing.

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 the baseline is 4 — there is nothing to document on the input side. The description correctly spends no space on parameters and instead clarifies the return-value semantics (version, capabilities), which is the appropriate focus. No information deficit exists here.

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 ('Handshake: returns this server's name, semver version, and capability flags') and the purpose is unmistakable as a connection-status probe. It naturally distinguishes itself from all siblings — none of which perform a version/capability handshake, since the others fetch domain data (monsters, characters, campaigns) or drive the rollPump surface.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it on connect' and instructs the agent to assert the version minimum before relying on newer tools, and to read capabilities to determine whether writes are enabled and which optional surfaces exist. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but for a handshake this is inherent — the guidance clearly establishes it as the gating prerequisite to the other tool surfaces.

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