bridge_ping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: it is lightweight, returns a timestamp, and has zero scene side effects. No contradictions with annotations.

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 core message is front-loaded in two short sentences covering purpose, usage, and non-mutation. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but remains compact and easy to parse.

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 heartbeat tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, why to call it, and that it is side-effect-free. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit note that a timestamp is returned.

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 and the schema is complete with no properties. Per the 0-parameter baseline, the description has no parameter documentation burden and adds no unnecessary parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: a 'lightweight heartbeat' that returns the Max internal timestamp. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose of confirming bridge liveness and explicitly notes it never modifies the scene, distinguishing it from mutation-heavy siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use it to confirm the bridge is alive.' It also clarifies that it never touches the scene, implying safe health-check usage. It does not name alternative sibling tools like bridge_status, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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