origin_ping

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'report basic status' without specifying what status means, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state), or safety profile. The agent cannot infer that this is a safe, idempotent check.

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 sentence, but its brevity sacrifices essential information. It is not well-structured; it lacks any breakdown or elaboration. While front-loaded, it is under-specified for its purpose.

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 simplicity (one param, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter or the return value. The output schema may cover returns, but the description fails to clarify behavior, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 single boolean parameter 'show' has a default but no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its meaning or effect. The agent cannot determine what toggling 'show' does.

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 action: 'Connect to Origin/OriginPro and report basic status.' It specifies the resource and a clear outcome, distinguishing it from sibling tools which perform specific operations like plotting or data manipulation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or contexts where a ping is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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