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. 'Scrape' implies external web access but does not disclose potential latency, rate limits, read-only nature, or anything about the return format. The agent is left uninformed about side effects or dependencies.

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 filler. However, it is under-specified; while efficient, it lacks detail that could be included without bloating.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what 'bridge information' includes, but it does not. Additionally, the presence of sibling bridge tools calls for clearer differentiation. The description is inadequate for a tool with optional parameters and unknown outputs.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (timeout and includeDetails), each with defaults and descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool 'scrape[s] bridge information from Puffer Finance bridge page', providing a specific verb and resource. However, 'bridge information' is vague and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like execute_bridge or puffer_bridge.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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