select_bridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it covers only the benign paths: default shows current status, scan enumerates ports 17873-17882. It is silent on the behaviorally significant parameters it actually accepts — 'force_takeover' (implies seizing a binding from another client), 'wait_seconds' (implies blocking), and 'expected_bridge_id' (implies a safety check) — all undisclosed, so an agent cannot judge side effects or disruption.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then Args/Returns/Examples — a readable structure. But the three examples only restate the already-documented port/scan behavior and consume space that should have gone to the four undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns section is not strictly needed, yet the four unexplained parameters remain the real gap. For a connection-management tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call it safely, particularly around force_takeover.

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, but it documents only 'port' and 'scan' out of 6 parameters. The semantics of client_id, wait_seconds, force_takeover, and expected_bridge_id are entirely absent from both schema and description, leaving half the surface 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: selecting and binding to a particular Unity bridge instance, which is distinct from most siblings in the Unity-editor toolset. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'bind_bridge', and the overlap between 'select' and 'bind' leaves ambiguity about which tool owns which operation.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering condition: use when multiple Unity editor instances are running. The three examples demonstrate scan, status-check, and direct-connect cases, which is concrete when-to-use guidance. It stops short of when-not-to-use or naming a preferred alternative over the sibling bind_bridge.

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