run-bridge-test

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'verifies communication and apply test effects,' which suggests it performs both read-like verification and write-like application. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, permissions needed, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform an agent about its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Run the bridge test effects script to verify communication and apply test effects.' It is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with no redundant or verbose elements. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects or output, which are important for an agent to use it correctly. The description is minimally viable but leaves gaps in context, especially for a tool that involves 'apply test effects'—a potential mutation without safety annotations.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate given the tool likely requires none. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description adequately aligns with the schema's lack of parameters without adding unnecessary detail.

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 purpose: 'Run the bridge test effects script to verify communication and apply test effects.' It specifies the action ('run') and the target ('bridge test effects script'), and mentions the dual objectives of verification and application. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'run-script' or 'test-animation', which keeps it from a score of 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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It implies usage for verifying communication and applying test effects, but offers no explicit context on when to choose this over alternatives like 'run-script' or 'test-animation', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of comparative guidance limits its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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