bridge_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses two key traits: the operation is read-only and errors/warnings are not hidden ('Fehler/Warnungen werden nicht verschwiegen'). However, it does not describe what the diagnosis covers, what the output contains, or any other side effects, so transparency is partial rather than complete.

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 that front-loads the primary operation ('read-only Diagnose') and then adds the error/warning transparency guarantee. No word is wasted.

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 parameterless, read-only diagnostic tool, the description covers the core operation and error-reporting behavior sufficiently for invocation. However, with no output schema, it stops short of describing the result format, and it gives no selection guidance relative to bridge_health.

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 schema has zero properties needing explanation, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no input-parameter detail, but none is needed.

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 clear action: 'Führt eine read-only Diagnose aus' (performs a read-only diagnosis), which identifies the tool as a non-mutating diagnostic operation. It is specific enough to distinguish from modification siblings like apply_corrections, but it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling bridge_health or specify what exactly is being diagnosed.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative routing is provided. The 'read-only' qualifier hints at safe diagnostic use, but there is no statement about when to choose bridge_doctor over bridge_health or other siblings.

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