bridge_ensure_alive

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

The side effect of opening the show is disclosed, as is the blocking wait and timeout default. With no annotations, this is decently transparent, though it does not explain failure modes or the exact shape of the returned alive status.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and return value, followed by a single clear parameter note. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers what it does, when it may open a show, the return, and the timeout default. It only omits the exact shape of the returned alive status and possible failure behavior.

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?

Even though the schema provides no description, the tool description fully documents 'timeout (float | None): Max seconds to wait (default 45)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema properties.

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 gives a specific action ('Open the show in TD... wait for the bridge heartbeat') and return value ('Returns alive status'). It is distinct from sibling status/state tools because it explicitly involves opening the show and waiting, not just querying state.

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 implies usage (ensure alive before proceeding) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like bridge_status or bridge_open_show. No decision criteria or contrasting context is provided.

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