typora_bridge_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'without changing Typora' is largely redundant with structured data. It adds only marginal context ('explicit standalone renderer bridge') and says nothing about what constitutes a detected vs. absent bridge, or whether the check touches the filesystem or network.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only inspection tool, though it is arguably too sparse to carry the required parameter and routing information.

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 read-only status check with no output schema, annotations cover the safety profile, so the bar is low. However, the undocumented executablePath parameter and the lack of any distinction from typora_status/typora_capabilities leave real gaps for an agent choosing between these diagnostics.

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?

There is one parameter (executablePath) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so the agent has no guidance on what this path should point to or whether it is optional. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and a specific resource (the explicit standalone renderer bridge installation), so the agent knows it reports on bridge install state rather than modifying it. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling typora_status or typora_capabilities, which plausibly report overlapping status information.

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 phrase 'without changing Typora' implies this is the diagnostic/inspection counterpart to typora_install_bridge and typora_uninstall_bridge, so usage is implied. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over typora_status, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions named.

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