machine_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Report' verb aligns with that safety profile. The description adds useful context by enumerating exactly what the tool exposes, including background processes and available external tools, without contradicting the annotations.

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 short sentences with the substantive content front-loaded and a practical usage cue in the second sentence. There is no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only status tool with one optional, fully described parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool reports and when to call it. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret its purpose without further documentation.

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 single optional include parameter is described in the schema as 'Optional bootstrap sections,' so the schema carries the documentation burden. The tool description does not add meaning about what 'bootstrap sections' or the git/project values actually do, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a precise verb ('Report') and specifies the resource: access mode, workspace root, platform, available external tools, and session-managed background processes. This clearly reads as a session/bridge status overview and distinguishes it from more targeted siblings like list_processes and environment_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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first when unsure what the bridge can do.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not name exclusions or explicitly route to alternatives in the description itself, even though siblings are visible in context.

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