bridge_doctor

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable specificity: it does not authenticate and does not change settings, and it is scoped to local information. This goes beyond the annotation flags by clarifying authentication behavior and local scope, which helps an agent know what side effects to expect (none). No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the negative scope in the second adds value without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only diagnostic tool, the description covers what it reads (local capabilities and versions) and what it excludes (auth and settings). There is no output schema, but the description adequately tells an agent what information to expect. Given the annotations and zero parameters, nothing essential is missing.

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, so the schema has no properties to describe. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters. This matches the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, where no parameter-level meaning 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it 'Read[s] local bridge capabilities and Codex/Claude Code versions,' which clearly defines the action and object. It also explicitly states what it does not do (authenticate or change settings), further distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely perform mutations or other reads. Verdict: clearly identifiable and differentiated.

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 implies a diagnostic/preflight use case: checking local capabilities and versions, likely before using other bridge tools. It explicitly notes it is not for authentication or settings changes, giving a when-not, but it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit conditions for selecting it over siblings. This is clear context with an exclusion, but not fully explicit alternatives.

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