bridge_router_call

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds one meaningful behavior: destructive methods remain gated by safe mode. However, it does not mention auth requirements, invalid-method error behavior, return shape, or rate limits, leaving important dynamic behavior undisclosed.

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 functional sentences plus minimal parameter documentation. The 'escape hatch' and 'prefer typed tools' guidance are front-loaded, every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

While the description covers the calling pattern and safety gating, it never touches on return format, error reporting, or what happens if the supplied method name is invalid. Even as a low-level escape hatch, an agent benefits from knowing what to expect when the router returns unknown shapes.

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 schema has 0% description coverage; the description's 'e.g. node.get' adds an example format for the method name, and 'parameters as a dict' barely exceeds the schema's type information. It does not explain how to shape/populate the params dictionary properly for the target method.

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 states it is a 'raw' pass-through call for 'ANY router method', emphasizes it's an escape hatch, and says the agent should prefer the typed tools. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling typed tools and explains what it does at the correct abstraction level.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to 'prefer the typed tools', making it the fallback for methods not covered by a specific sibling. 'Escape hatch' further clarifies the intended use case, giving the agent a clear directive on when to select this tool over alternatives.

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