Verify connectivity by running a bounded ping from a staged device to a destination and parsing actual console statistics instead of relying on exit status.
Parse bounded actual ping statistics from a bound staged console; never infer success from exit status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| device | Yes | ||
| topology | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes | ||
| project_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by warning to parse actual ping statistics and never infer success from exit status, but it does not explain the implications of running against an open-world staged console or what side effects may occur.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is efficient, though some terms such as 'bound staged console' are jargon-heavy and could be clearer.
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?
There is no output schema and no parameter documentation beyond unlabeled schema fields. For a five-parameter connectivity verification tool, the description should do more to explain inputs, expected output, and how the result should be interpreted.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, including project_path, topology, device, destination, and count. The description does not define these parameters or clarify how 'bounded' relates to count, leaving parameter meaning almost entirely to the bare schema titles.
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 specific action and resource: parsing bounded actual ping statistics from a bound staged console. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from connectivity-related siblings such as hcl_health_check or hcl_console_exec.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for connectivity verification but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.