bridge_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by saying 'Read'. It adds meaningful behavioral nuance by explaining that 'completed' only means the agent turn finished, not independent verification, and notes 'bounded output' hinting at size limits. This goes beyond the annotations and adds value.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence for the core action and one for state interpretation. It front-loads the primary purpose and delivers critical context efficiently without redundancy.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and state semantics. However, it omits details about the return format and the effect of 'includeOutput', which is a gap given the lack of an output schema. The 'bounded output' mention is vague, leaving the agent with some uncertainty about what to expect.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain the 'receiptId' parameter or the 'includeOutput' flag. While 'receiptId' is inferable from the name, 'includeOutput' is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to guess its effect. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 reads a durable delivery receipt, including hashes, state, and bounded output. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the meaning is unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bridge_sessions or bridge_answer, relying on the name for distinction.

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 actionable usage guidance by interpreting the 'uncertain' and 'completed' states, instructing the agent to inspect the session before retrying when uncertain and clarifying that 'completed' does not imply verification. This helps decide next steps, though it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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