Keel

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 key behavioral traits: the method (TCP connect on port 80), the non-root ICMP alternative aspect, and the return format (min/avg/max/jitter latency in ms). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a network tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and method, and the second sentence specifies the return values. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 moderate complexity (network ping with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the method and return format but misses details on parameter usage, error cases, or how it integrates with sibling tools, which could help an agent use it correctly in context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly mention parameters like host, count, or timeout, but the context ('ping a host') implies the host parameter, and the return details hint at count affecting latency measurements. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, though not fully compensating for the low coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('ping a host') and resource ('host'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'TCP connect (port 80) as a non-root ICMP alternative', which differentiates it from tools like health, http_check, or port_check that might use different protocols or methods.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (pinging a host via TCP on port 80 as an alternative to ICMP), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like health or port_check, which might be relevant for different network diagnostics.

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