lpza_ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no API call is made and that live access is unavailable until credentials are configured. This gives the agent important context about the tool's non-invasive, connectivity-check nature.

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 sentences, no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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, zero-parameter ping tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, what it doesn't do, and a prerequisite (credentials). No significant gaps remain.

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, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to add beyond the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('confirm') with a clear resource ('the LawPracticeZA MCP server process'), and it explicitly states what it does ('is running'). This differentiates it from sibling tools that handle clients, matters, and fees.

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?

It clearly states what the tool does not do ('Does not call the LawPracticeZA API') and provides a contextual caveat about credentials. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this when you need to check connectivity,' which would make the guideline stronger.

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