Tickera Bridge Status

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, so the agent already knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what is checked (plugin active, dependencies present) and what it returns (default ticket-template ID). This goes beyond the minimal safety annotation and provides actionable expectations.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. No filler or redundant content, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, read-only, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage timing, and return value. It lacks explicit details on what happens when dependencies are missing, but that is not critical for tool selection. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only parameter, response_format, is fully described in the schema with enum, default, and description, giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not need to add further parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on the tool's core behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional parameter meaning is necessary.

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's function: 'Check that the Ars Nova Tickera Bridge plugin is active and that WooCommerce, Tickera, and the Bridge for WooCommerce are all present. Returns the default ticket-template ID.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the resource and return value, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tickera_create_event and wp_ops_status.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before creating events/tickets,' giving a clear when-to-use directive. It does not mention alternatives or when-not to use, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this tool appropriately among the Tickera-related siblings.

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