ping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool calls a plugin and returns build metadata, which is the key behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a liveness probe these are likely safe, but the lack of explicit safety disclosure in the description is a minor gap.

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 two short clauses, front-loaded with the essential purpose ('Liveness probe') and no filler. Every word earns its place. It is as concise as possible while conveying the tool's function and target.

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 simple utility tool with no parameters and an output schema available (indicated by has output schema: true), the description is nearly complete. It explains what it does and what it returns. It could optionally mention the output schema exists, but the agent can infer that from the tool definition. The only missing element is explicit safety/read-only semantics, but that is minor for a liveness check.

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 an empty object. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters because there is nothing for the description to explain. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed.

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 identifies the tool as a 'liveness probe' and specifies the resource it calls (SysML v1 bridge plugin) and the outcome (returns build metadata). This is distinct from all sibling tools, which are domain operations like create_block or delete_element. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 purpose implies when to use it (checking system liveness), but the description does not explicitly state 'use when...' or contrast with alternatives. Since it is a unique utility tool with no obvious substitute, explicit guidance is less critical, but the rubric asks for when-to-use vs alternatives; it is only implied.

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