Sdk Bridge Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious security context by stating it will not return bearer tokens or lease secrets, which is genuinely useful beyond the 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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the security caveat is placed where it is read. Efficient and front-loaded, though the semicolon clause is a second idea.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. The definition is adequate for a read-only discovery tool but leaves the only parameter's semantics unexplained.

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 parameter process_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions what it means or what happens if it is omitted (it defaults to 0). With one undocumented parameter, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: discovering the optional ArcGIS Pro SDK Add-In and reading its redacted status. The '脱敏' (redacted) qualifier distinguishes it from a generic status endpoint, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the many arcgis_pro_sdk_* 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as arcgis_pro_sdk_context, arcgis_pro_window_status, or arcgis_pro_sdk_edit_status, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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