Ping Malcolm API

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive hints, but the description adds rich behavioral context: the exact response format, error handling for unreachable API, and the specific meaning of a pass including authentication validation and what it does not guarantee. This goes well beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides structured details in separate sentences. Every sentence earns its place, providing distinct pieces of information: endpoint, usage guidance, alternative tools, response format, error behavior, and limitations. No redundancy.

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?

Despite being a simple ping tool, the description covers everything needed: what it does, when to use it, what the response looks like, how errors are reported, and what the results do and do not prove. The output schema is present, so the raw response format need not be separately documented.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema provides no information. With zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds the request method and endpoint (GET /mapi/ping) and explains the response, which is useful context even though not parameter-specific.

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 verb and resource: 'Quick liveness check that the Malcolm API answers (GET /mapi/ping).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly naming alternative tools and explaining what this tool does not cover.

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?

Provides explicit 'when to use' guidance: 'Use this as the cheapest reachability probe.' It then gives alternative tools for related but distinct purposes (malcolm_service_status, cluster_health) and clarifies the exact meaning of a pass, which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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