ping_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states 'Execute Ping test' without mentioning ICMP echo requests, timeouts, potential network impact, or result interpretation. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a network diagnostic 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 short sentence, well-structured and front-loaded. It is concise with no wasted words, though it is minimal in substance.

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 diagnostic purpose, the description is too thin. It does not explain expected output, success criteria, or how to interpret results, even though an output schema exists. More context is needed for the agent to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters (target, count, interface) already described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '执行 Ping 测试' (Execute Ping test) clearly states a specific action on a specific resource. It identifies the tool as a network diagnostic function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar tools like traceroute or speed_test.

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 provides no guidance on when to use ping_test versus alternatives such as traceroute or speed_test. No context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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