ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect that Ollama is auto-started if needed, the first-call cold-start latency of 30-50s versus a few seconds when warm, and that no screen reading occurs. It could still say more about failure modes, but the 'error?' field and 'cold' flag hint at that.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then the latency caveat — a sensible ordering. It is slightly long with the field-by-field enumeration, but every sentence adds information an agent would want.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields ({ok, server, ollama, model_reply_ok, model, seconds, cold, error?}). For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, nothing needed to invoke or interpret it is missing.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies invocation requires no arguments.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Heartbeat: checks that this bridge works end to end') and enumerates the exact sub-checks it performs (server up, Ollama reachable, model returns 'pong'). The 'No screen reading' clause implicitly distinguishes it from look_at_screen, but the overlapping sibling 'health' is never addressed, so the differentiation is incomplete.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and framing — a heartbeat/diagnostic. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the sibling 'health' tool, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance beyond the latency note.

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