bridge_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the possible return states, which is helpful, but it does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it can fail, what happens on error, or any side effects. For a probe-like tool, it likely has no side effects, but this is not explicitly confirmed. The lack of any safety or side-effect information leaves the agent guessing.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the essential information (the possible states). While it is brief, it is not under-specified to the point of being cryptic; it communicates the core function effectively. The brevity is appropriate for a tool with no parameters and a simple return value.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description still leaves gaps. It does not explain what 'TD' refers to, nor does it describe the return format (e.g., a string, enum, or JSON). It also does not mention any error conditions or prerequisites. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the intended use and behavior, which it does not.

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 this. According to the baseline, 0 parameters yields a score of 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and it does not attempt to describe any, so it fully satisfies the semantic requirement.

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 'TD three-state probe' and lists the possible states (ok | starting | down | off). It is not a tautology and gives a specific resource (bridge state) and action (probe), but it does not explicitly state what the tool does beyond returning one of these values. It is somewhat vague, as 'TD' is not explained, and the exact return format is not described. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like bridge_status or bridge_snapshot.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. No context is given about the situation where this probe is appropriate, and no alternatives are mentioned. The description implies a read-only status check, but it never states conditions for use or exclusions.

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