bridge_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a read-only diagnostic that surfaces one value (the directory) and explains why it matters. It stops short of stating the return format or whether it errors when the bridge is uninitialized.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The action is front-loaded and the diagnostic context immediately follows, with no restating of the name.

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-param diagnostic with no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke correctly: what it does, when to reach for it, and the key invariant (Python/Lua directory match). More detail on return shape would be nice but is not required.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to misdescribe, and the description correctly implies it takes no arguments by framing it as a passive status print.

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 action (print the bridge directory) and the resource (the directory the Python side uses). It's a diagnostic read tool that is clearly distinguished from siblings like reaper_eval or ping by naming what it returns. Minor gap: 'bridge' is project-specific jargon that isn't independently defined.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to 'diagnosing setup issues' and even provides the criterion that matters (it must match the Lua side). No explicit when-not or named alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5, but the triggering context is clear.

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