bridge_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool checks connections and returns file info, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that the tool has no side effects or destructive actions. More transparency about the non-destructive nature would improve the score.

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 with two sentences, no redundant information. The key information is front-loaded with 'Diagnostic:', making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose and what it returns. Every sentence adds value, including the troubleshooting advice.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, return values, and a failure response action. It is complete for a simple diagnostic tool. However, without an output schema, more details about the exact format of the returned file key/name could enhance completeness.

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 has no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to guidelines, with high coverage the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since no parameters exist. The score reflects adequate handling for a parameterless tool.

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 is diagnostic: it checks if the WebSocket bridge is running and the Figma plugin is connected, and it returns the connected file's key/name. The 'Diagnostic:' prefix and specific verb 'check' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostic tools like 'debug_resolve_token' or 'get_design_context' by focusing on the bridge/plugin connection 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 includes actionable advice for when the plugin is not connected ('make sure the 'Tokens Studio MCP Bridge' plugin is open in Figma'), which guides the user on next steps. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other diagnostic tools), nor does it mention scenarios where the tool should not be used.

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