bridge_router_version

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful behavior: mismatches are soft warnings, not hard failures, implying a non-blocking, read-only negotiation call. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free or error semantics, but for a version surface this is sufficient.

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?

One compact sentence conveys the return content and the key behavioral rule, with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given a zero-parameter tool and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how mismatches are handled. It does not specify the response shape or field names, but the description is still adequate for selecting and invoking the call.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty properties object. There is nothing parameter-specific to explain, so the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as exposing the router surface version and method count, which is specific and distinguishable from sibling bridge tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' but the intent is unambiguous for a parameterless version-info endpoint.

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 'capability negotiation; soft-warn on mismatch, never hard-lock' provides clear context for when to call this tool and how to interpret its result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, which keeps it from a 5.

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