runtime_ping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately discloses a non-mutating read-only operation via the verb 'check'. It does not detail response format or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter reachability check, this level of transparency is sufficient.

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 concise sentence of eight words, front-loading the action and object without any filler. It is an exemplary use of brevity.

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 minimal complexity (no parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the one-sentence description fully conveys the tool's purpose and usage. It explains enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema is empty, so the description correctly adds no parameter details. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this earns a 4.

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 function with a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'live-game runtime bridge', distinguishing it from sibling runtime_* tools that perform actions (e.g., runtime_screenshot, runtime_call_method). It precisely conveys that this is a connectivity health-check.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need to verify that the live-game runtime bridge is reachable, likely as a precondition for other runtime operations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident for a ping tool.

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