fl_ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The included return schema reveals that the tool reports online/installed status and a capabilities list, but it does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only, can fail, or triggers reconnection. This is partial transparency—adequate for a simple ping but not a full behavioral contract.

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 compact parts: a one-line purpose and a minimal return-shape sketch. Every element earns its place, and the most important information is 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 zero-argument health probe, the description covers the essential return fields and their booleans. It omits usage guidance and describes the capabilities array only via an ellipsis, but the low complexity means the agent has enough to call and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 imperative—'Report health of BOTH bridges'—and names the two bridge resources (midi_bridge, piano_roll), making the tool's scope clear. It differentiates itself from single-bridge or info-only siblings by emphasizing both bridges and listing the relevant health fields.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use fl_ping over related siblings such as fl_bridge_info, fl_reconnect, or transport_status. The description only states what it does, not when/why to call it, and offers no exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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