ping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is well covered. The description adds useful operational context—this is a health/reachability check and an initial diagnostic step—but does not disclose details like the exact shape of the reachability report, which the output schema can carry.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is tacked on without any filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 parameterless, read-only, health-check tool with an output schema present, the description covers what it does, its scope, and when to invoke it. No critical operational gap remains for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0 parameters and the schema reflects that, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing undocumented that the description would need to compensate for.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('server health and which backends are reachable'). It is not a tautology of the name 'ping' and it differentiates this tool from sibling 'list_backends' by focusing on reachability/health rather than just listing backends.

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 gives explicit situational guidance: 'Start here when other tools report backend errors.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not enumerate when-not conditions or explicitly compare against alternatives like list_backends.

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