Ping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value format and condition, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential errors, latency, or other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences in French, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the outcome. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple health check), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameters, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose, usage, and return value. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the optional parameter or error cases, but for such a simple tool, it's largely sufficient.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameters. However, since there is only 1 optional parameter ('msg'), the tool likely functions without it, making the description adequate. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but here the parameter is optional and undocumented, so a slight deduction to 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't add param info but the tool is simple.

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 states the specific action ('Vérifie l'état du serveur MCP') and the resource ('serveur MCP'), with a precise outcome ('Retourne { result: 'OK' } si le serveur est opérationnel'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are data listing or order/sale operations, by focusing on server health checking.

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 implies usage context: to check if the server is operational, which is clear and appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., other diagnostic tools), so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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