test_bridge_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns 'auth status and scopes' and mentions the target URL (mcp.algochains.ai), providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Single sentence of 15 words is maximally concise. Includes purpose, target, and return info with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 test tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, description covers purpose, parameter, and return. Could mention error behavior or prerequisites, but adequate for typical use.

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?

Single parameter api_key is fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds value by noting the environment variable fallback (AC_DEV_KEY), which helps the agent understand alternative input methods.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Test' and resource 'developer API key against the hosted AlgoChains bridge'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_developer_key or list_developer_keys by focusing on testing validity against a specific endpoint.

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?

Purpose implies usage for validating a key, but no explicit when-to-use or when-to-avoid guidance. No mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer context from the name and description.

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