ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The wording strongly implies a safe, read-only diagnostic and identifies one returned value, but it does not explicitly confirm side effects, permissions, or response format.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and outcome.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is checked and one key result. With no output schema, it could specify the exact return shape, but the missing detail is minor.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed because the input schema is an empty object.

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 names a clear verb and resource: it checks whether the bridge is alive and reports Live's version. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_session_info.

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 a health-check or connectivity use case, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_session_info. No prerequisites, exclusions, or routing guidance are provided.

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