bridge_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-style check ('Check whether...') and explains the downstream routing effect, but says nothing about permissions, latency, or what the result looks like, so the mutation-safety profile is only implied by the verb.

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 tight sentences with no waste, front-loading the object of the check before the consequence sentence.

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 zero-param read check with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the practical reason to call it. The one gap is the return shape (boolean vs. status object), which matters slightly more because no output schema exists.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing in the schema for the description to compensate for.

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 check: whether a bridge-enabled Prism (GUI or PrismLauncher-Agent headless) is running for this data dir. The resource and condition are precise enough that an agent knows exactly what question is answered, though it does not name a sibling tool or say what makes it differ from get_instance_status.

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?

Explains the consequence: when the bridge is available, launch/stop/create/set_setting/instance settings route through the live app, which implicitly tells the agent to check this before relying on those tools. No explicit when-not or a named alternative is given, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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