pdm_ping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it's a health check and returns 'pong', which implies read-only and non-destructive behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm safety, authorization needs, or any potential side effects. For a simple ping, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences provide the purpose, expected output, and a prerequisite. There is no unnecessary information, and the key details are 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 simple health-check tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the action, success condition, and configuration requirement. The only minor gap is lack of explicit confirmation of idempotency or read-only nature, but that is already implied.

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 covers 100% of parameters, with the description of 'proximo_target' fully explaining its purpose. The tool description adds 'Needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config', which is context about the target but does not directly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool performs a health check on the PDM appliance and returns 'pong' on success. It uses the verb 'DIAGNOSE' and specifies the resource ('PDM appliance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'pdm_node_status' or 'pdm_version'.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other diagnostic tools like 'pdm_node_status' or 'pdm_remote_version'. The usage context is implied by the health check nature, but not elaborated.

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