bridge_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the show-mode lock semantics, the allowlist, the since-when information, and the detail/response_format output options. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but 'Current' strongly implies it and no side effects are suggested.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The core behavior is front-loaded first, followed by concise parameter documentation. There is no filler, repetition of schema fields, or irrelevant context.

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 simple getter with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, the meaning of the modes, the allowlist, and how detail and response_format shape the output.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain both parameters, and it does. It defines all meaningful values for detail and response_format, including defaults and the practical effect of each choice, such as cutting long lists to 25 or choosing token-cheap YAML.

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 identifies the resource as the current bridge mode and defines the two possible values, prep and show, along with what show mode locks. It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'returns,' but 'Current bridge mode' and the tool name make the read intent unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from bridge_set_mode by focusing on current state rather than changing it.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: this is a query for the current bridge mode and its allowlist. The mode definitions help an agent understand what the values mean, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over bridge_status, bridge_state, or bridge_set_mode.

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