fgui_ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect ('wakes up' the editor) and confirms it verifies protocol and capabilities, implying a non-mutating check. However, it omits details like failure modes, idempotency, or whether the editor must be running.

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?

A single sentence conveys purpose and behavioral nuance without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 ping tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation and verification scope. It could mention that this is intended for initial connection checks, but that is implied by the name and content.

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 schema is complete. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 wakes the FairyGUI Editor and verifies bridge protocol, version, and capabilities. It identifies a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from general-purpose tools, though it could more explicitly contrast with the sibling 'fgui_status'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fgui_status or fgui_get_project. It implies a startup/handshake role but lacks explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended invocation context.

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