pilot_ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the ping action and RTT return, but does not explicitly mention safety (e.g., non-destructive, read-only) or any side effects. Adequate for a simple diagnostic tool, but lacks explicit safety profile.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the purpose, then mention usage context. No redundant information, 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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and return value. It could mention error behavior or prerequisites, but given the low complexity, it is fairly complete.

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 description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Schema covers count and target with descriptions, but timeout_seconds lacks description, and the tool description does not compensate. Since schema coverage is 67%, the description should add some context but doesn't.

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 it performs a round-trip ping to confirm tunnel connectivity and returns RTT. It uses a specific verb ('ping'), identifies the resource ('peer'), and the outcome is measurable, distinguishing it from siblings like pilot_send and pilot_query.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when pilot_send / pilot_query / pilot_send_file are failing' to isolate reachability vs message-layer issues. It names alternative tools, providing clear exclusion criteria.

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