bridge_sessions

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

Annotations already declare this tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: sessions are limited to 'allowed' ones, Claude Desktop sessions may not be resumable, and returned text is untrusted. It does not contradict the annotations, but it omits some behaviors around cursor pagination and the includeQueue/includeOutput flags.

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?

Four short sentences front-load the core purpose and then add only high-value caveats. There is no filler or restatement of the schema.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter descriptions in the schema, the description must carry more load for an 8-parameter tool. It explains the core read/find behavior and trust caveats but leaves pagination, queue/output flags, project/thread semantics, and return shape 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies provider selection and the find/read action. The remaining six parameters (query, cursor, project, threadId, includeQueue, includeOutput) receive no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 identifies the operation as finding/reading Codex or local Claude Code sessions, specifying the resource and provider scope. It does not explicitly contrast with bridge_session_manage or other siblings, so it misses the explicit differentiation required for a 5.

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 useful context for provider selection and warns that Claude Desktop sessions are not CLI-resumable, but it never states when to prefer bridge_sessions over sibling tools such as bridge_session_manage. Usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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