bridge_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does imply a non-mutating read by using "Return" and it names the three data groups the caller receives. It does not state whether this requires an authenticated bridge connection, whether it is expensive, or how failures are reported.

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 front-loaded sentence listing the returned items in a compact, scannable form with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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 zero-parameter, non-mutating info tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields (version, policies/backends, verification status) is largely sufficient. It stops short of describing structure or format, e.g. whether backends is a list or the version is a string, which the absent output schema would otherwise have covered.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space restating a nonexistent input schema.

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 ("Return") with a concrete list of what is returned: bridge version, available policies/backends, and verification status. An agent can tell this is a read-only informational endpoint, though nothing explicitly separates it from info-style siblings like model_object_info or experiment_summary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisite such as needing an active connection or session. The agent must infer that this is a discovery/status call, likely a first step before other bridge operations.

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