get_bridge_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a relevant behavior: 'Always includes caveats about ETH/Stargate limitations,' which sets expectations. However, it does not mention return shape, failure modes, or any other limitations, so the behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: state the tool's goal, its scope, and a behavioral guarantee. No filler or redundant phrasing; the most identifying 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?

For a simple info-getting tool, the description covers the core subject and even highlights recurring caveats. But with no output schema, no annotations, and no guidance on default behavior when optional parameters are omitted, the description leaves some practical usage questions unanswered.

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 compensate. It does add meaning for one enum: 'native Caldera bridge and Stargate (LayerZero OFT)' explains the bridge parameter values. However, the network parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving half the parameter space unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get bridge information for Horizen.' It also clarifies scope by naming the two covered bridges (native Caldera and Stargate/LayerZero OFT), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chain_info or get_token_info.

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 the tool is for bridge-related queries on Horizen, but it never explicitly says when to use it instead of a sibling tool or what to do when bridge or network is omitted. The context is clear enough that an agent could infer usage, but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.

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