Send 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 the core behavior (sending a heartbeat and reporting status) but omits details like the meaning of the start/log states, the message body, exit code handling, or response format. Not misleading, but incomplete.

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 sentences with the action front-loaded. No unnecessary words, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the main purpose and use cases. However, the lack of output schema and annotations means the agent has no information about the response or full side effects, but this is a minor gap for a heartbeat ping.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about success/failure states but does not clarify start/log or the other parameters, providing only marginal value beyond the 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 ('Send') and resource ('a check') with a clear scope: heartbeat signal for reporting success, failure, or manual testing. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that manage checks or list resources.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'report success, failure, or manually test a check.' This provides clear context and separates it from check management tools, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use.

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